S.a.m.

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Michael, Dec 28, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    SAM has made you indifferent. So you might have cared about a certain issue or group of people, but she has made you not care.

    I think this is strange, especially given that you are aware that she has made you indifferent.

    Then I can't see where her posts had the opposite effect. For all practical purposes you have the same effect on the world.

    So SAM made you more concerned about the West?

    So you know that she made you less concerned about Muslims? What do you plan to do about that?

    I still think this is a strange thing to say. It is not their fault that she posted in this forum the way she did. I could imagine someone not noticing that something had desensitized them to an issue or someone's suffering. But if you know, then are you not still responsible?

    My spouse was always worried about the poor. She went on and on. Now I don't care about the poor. Period?

    Very strange.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    I do recognize that people react this way. But it is one thing to notice that other people react this way and another to claim it yourself.

    SAM is bad. SAM is bad because I used to care about the Palestinians, but now I don't.

    Whoops.

    What the hell are you going to do about it?

    Many questions can be asked here.

    Why did they keep reading her posts if they were making them care less about people?

    Why did they give her so much power?

    Why do they seem unconcerned about their own reactions?

    I would be more critical of Israel's policies and actions in relation to Palestinians if I hadn't read SAM's posts.

    I am sorry but that sounds like BS to me.

    If I knew that someone was making me care less about people, for the wrong reason, I would do something about that. They could read strident pro-Israel documents until they find balance. I mean really.

    By the way, your example....

    Here you have the US complaining about its own situation. SAM is not Palestinian. What people are arguing is that a third party made them care less about something. If it is true, it seems to me they would have a desire themselves, to balance things. It does fit in relation to Muslims, but again, one person's posts made them care less about a whole group's point of view. And they know this is true. Very strange.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    /sigh

    lets look at what was said....

    lets try variations.....

    1 - Are you planning on leading by example, or is this just more idle talk on your part?

    2 - Are you planning on leading by example, or is this just more idle talk on other people's part?

    you are being addled brained and disingenuous if you think the 2nd version is a more valid extrapolation of your quote over the 1st version


    the bolded refers to...


    ...my "idle talk"
    so again, what and where is.... "more"?

    get a fucking clue, mr trolling with inanities


    i suppose you think you are making some brownie points
    whats next, don't let the door hit you on the way out?
    dont my repeated postings make it clear that i am here?

    you prefer to troll, ja?
    what the fuck do you think you are rubbing in, boy?

    /sneer


    sans the contrary assertion on my part (which you failed to highlight), what purpose does your reiteration of that point serve apart from making you look even more trollish? have you no shame?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2010
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    A dangerous precedent

    The Dangerous Precedent: A Statement of the Core Issue

    There are two underlying issues afoot here, one of which—obviously—is how we regard S.A.M. as an individual in our community. That one, it seems, can carry on to Judgment Day without making a whole lot of progress.

    But the less apparent, and perhaps more important issue is an exploration of the implications surrounding "the S.A.M. issue". Gustav pointed to a recent discussion of "the S.A.M. issue", and therein we find a practical reminder. If you follow Gustav's image captures, you come up with a number of old links, one of which is James' indictment of S.A.M. in September, and another being my response.

    In the current issue, some would suggest that S.A.M. is being treated fairly, though moderators viewing the back room discussion are aware that we have invoked a new standard for S.A.M. that has not been applied in the past; specifically, we are invoking a new perspective to strip from S.A.M. benefits we have reserved for members in the past. Over the long run, one can certainly argue that this is the a more appropriate outcome, but those watching with a critical eye might suggest it awfully convenient that S.A.M. should be our starting point.

    Analogously, in American history, the early drug war took place against Chinese laborers imported for the railroads and other projects in the western territories. Over time, nobody really said much about opium use. But then white people started using it, and Chinese dealers stared making money. The crackdown began. We went through the same thing with marijuana; as long as it was viewed as something nonwhites did, that was fine, but as soon as whites started giving minorities money for drugs, it was time to get involved. Does anyone recall that methamphetamine rose in the American west long before the 1990s? Sure, it was a "problem", but the laws didn't start to toughen up until the latter half of the nineties, coincidentally when hispanic gangs emerged as the primary beneficiaries of the market. (Did you know that at least until the late nineties, methamphetamine was regarded as less addictive and less harmful to users than marijuana?) And for how long did the essentially racist federal crack standard hold sway?

    It is not necessarily a behavior or the problems it causes that, historically, have led Americans—at least—to action, but rather a question of who is behaving in a given way.

    And for many, this suffices. That the transition occurs on a visible identifier such as ethnicity or creed is merely coincidental, and cannot possibly be intentional—after all, psychology is bunk, so there's no way underlying prejudices that people have repressed or sublimated could possibly influence their actions, right? It just turns out that these thresholds magically coincide with objective, circumstantial evidence that suggests we must necessarily make this transition now.

    And that's what is going on. Whether you hold with the sinister or the virginally blameless suggestion, we have reached a threshold. And that is what I would like people to stop and consider. After all, it seems well and fine for many to treat S.A.M. this way, but what will they say when it is them?

    Thus, I would ask that people go back and review James' former indictment of S.A.M., as well as my response to that indictment, and consider whether or not you want such standards applied to you. Indeed, we had a recent backroom discussion in which the very rules of grammar apparently distorted under the force of S.A.M.'s gravity.

    So remember, the standard we face now has both nothing and everything to do with what you write. It has nothing to do with what you write because what you write is now entirely subject to elective, arbitrary, or prejudiced interpretation and assignation. That is, you write the words, and we decide what you mean. And, secondly, it has everything to do with what you write because you will be held responsible for what we decide you have written.

    And if my fellows should choose to object to this characterization, I would ask for their explanation of how and why we got down to splitting the hairs of what words like "will" and "for" mean.

    And therein we achieve escape velocity: We can now orbit the issue without S.A.M.

    Do our members really want moderators and administrators deciding what they mean? Do our members really want us thinking for them? How will you feel about our judgment and assessments when we argue over what you meant by a three-letter conjunction?

    If we apply James' "S.A.M. standard" equally, that is exactly what members should expect. We literally argued about the meaning of the conjunction "for".

    To the other, I do wonder whether other members, aside from S.A.M., will be treated that way at the outset. When you quote a sentence and then make an assertion which can only be true if you erase half of the sentence?

    This is the new, "fair" standard members should expect. And my dissent from this administration and some of my fellows in this matter, even when we remove S.A.M. herself from the equation, stands quite squarely on my objection to this manner of application.

    And that's just the beginning. As my esteemed colleague Bells, said, "[S.A.M.] may prove to be the catalyst".

    Convenient? Perhaps. We should never wonder why the catalyst was never disgraceful conduct that echoed sentiments more familiar to our sensibilities. And we should certainly never wonder why the catalyst wasn't actually what he voices of condemnation claimed it was.

    Of course, she also suggests that catalyst, the misrepresentation of a member by an administrator, is the beginning of fairness.

    I would ask the Sciforums membership to consider very carefully where this is going. Yes, we are arguing over the use of conjunctions at this point. Of course, we could have skipped that part if an administrator simply acknowledged that the word existed, and what it meant.

    People get ready. My only question is, "Are you?"
    ____________________

    Notes:

    "for". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. January 3, 2010. Merriam-Webster.com. January 3, 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    I note you ignored my direct question to you.

    This comes from a man who makes five or six shrill complaints per day using the "report" button, on average.

    Well, this is a change of tune from you.
     
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    hyperbole much. and I would hardly call my compalints about members shrill though my commentary and complaints about the moderation and mods is a different story.



    How so? Tts been my belief from the start. Have you been paying attention to what I have been saying or have you been getting all your info from those with axes to grind?
     
  10. otheadp Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,853
    Oh man... 245 posts in this thread and counting!

    I'm truly enjoying the fact that (1) SAM finally got heroverdue and truly well-deserved ban, and (2) that "her supporters" (makes her ban sound like something very important with big political ramifications and like you're a friggen political movement or something... you're not. You're just a bunch of people in a tiny and really insignificant community, other than to our community of course) are frothing at the mouth, thisclose to getting a conniption over this. A big HAHAHA at you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Are you serious, man? Whats up with all the big words? Don't take yourself so seriously. You're not REALLY important, and neither is SAM, nor the fact that she was banned. It's alright. She'll be back in a coupla weeks and you'll get your idol back before you know it.
     
  11. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    Hate to break it to you, but you just did what you are laughing at.
     
  12. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,983
    I agree wit this... this is an insignificant comunity other than to those of us who partisipate... an thats what makes the charge agans SAM so silly... that shes spreadin proaganda... lol... as if her opinions in this groop are gonna have som big political ramificatons.!!!
     
  13. mordea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    418
    Why would I answer it? I was simply pointing out the supposed inconsistency in Bell's stance, where one complains about not receiving input from members while not asking for any. It seems I misinterpreted Bells though.

    To answer your question (ie. "Do you think you ought to be consulted every time a moderator wants to ban somebody temporarily?"), I'd respond with no. But there are times when it is appropriate to ask for feedback from the community, especially when a moderator clearly carries a particular grudge against a member. For instance, you and S.A.M.

    Oh, I'm sorry, you were giving me a curt dismissal? I wasn't aware, given that your ability to type coherent posts is right down there with clulesshusband's.

    I know that I've stopped reading S.A.M's posts, I just roll the little mouse wheel down whenever I see one (which is quite often, since she makes 30 something posts a day!). I can't vouch for others, although I suspect they have lost interest in discussing certain issues after having them spammed across the forum for ages. There are only so many ways you can say something before you start repeating yourself incessantly.
     
  14. mordea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    418
    For fuck's sake. If it's a core issue, can't you please condense it to a paragraph or two?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Then find a truly offensive post, or compile the dozens of them you claim, for your examples, please.

    Because until then you don't have much backing for all this.

    Again: there's nothing wrong with that post. Nothing. I had forgotten that it wasn't even a quote of her own, which sends the matter into absurdity, but even accepting the troll-pack's presumptions the only problem with that post is the reaction to it.
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    Goose and gander

    Even shorter than that:

    Those who celebrate this application of the rules because it has resulted in the suspension of someone they don't like will most probably be mortified when similar standards are applied to them.​
     
  17. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    lets break for a commercial and watch Arundhati Roy musing about a spat with Guha over a dam in india long long ago


    Have you read Ramachandra Guha's tirade against you in The Hindu?

    [Smiles] Tirades. Plural. Yes, yes, of course I have. He's become like a stalker who shows up at my doorstep every other Sunday. Some days he comes alone. Some days he brings his friends and family, they all chant and stamp... It's an angry little cottage industry that seems to have sprung up around me. Like a bunch of keening god-squadders, they link hands to keep their courage up and egg each other on - Aunt Slushy the novelist who's hated me for years, Uncle Defence Ministry who loves big dams, Little Miss Muffet who thinks I should watch my mouth. Actually, I've grown quite fond of them and I'll miss them when they're gone. It's funny, when I wrote The God of Small Things, I was attacked by the Left - when I wrote The End of Imagination, by the Right. Now I'm accused by Guha and his Ra-Ra club of being - simultaneously - extreme left, extreme right, extreme green, RSS, Swadeshi Jagran Manch and by some devilish sleight of hand, on Guha's side too! Goodness, he's skidding on his own tail!

    I don't know what it is with me and these academics-cum-cricket statisticians - Guha's the third one that I seem to have sent into an incensed orbit. Could it be my bad bowling action?...[laughs]

    Why have you chosen not to respond to Guha? Do you, as many others seem to, dismiss it as just a bad case of envy?

    No, no, not at all. That would be too convenient, too easy. One could end up saying that about everybody who was critical. No, I think that would be unfair. I'd say it's far more complex and interesting than that. Guha's outburst is dressed up as an attack on my 'style' - but it's not really that at all. If you part the invective, you'll see that our differences are serious, and seriously political.

    My style, my language, is not something superficial, like a coat that I wear when I go out. My style is me - even when I'm at home. It's the way I think. My style is my politics. Guha claims that we - he and I - are 'objectively' on the same side. I completely disagree. We are worlds apart, our politics, our arguments. I'm inclined to put as great a distance as possible between the Guhas of the world and myself.

    Sublimating shame into anger, we all know, is a common human failing. So what does Guha do? He picks the most visible target from amongst those who he feels are embarrassing him, and lets fly. If he had disputed my facts, if he had taken apart my argument, I could have respected him. I look forward to that devastating, incisive, logical tearing apart of my argument... Actually, that's a complete lie, I'm quite grateful that Guha's made such a spectacle of himself. Does he have anything substantial to say? Apart from insulting me personally, deliberately, wilfully, maliciously, Guha has no argument against my argument, nothing to say about my facts. So he tries to legislate on how I ought to feel about them. Never was there a more passionate indictment of passion, a more hysterical denunciation of hysteria - he's right, I am hysterical. I'm screaming from the bloody rooftops. And he and his smug little club are going Shhhh... you'll wake the neighbours! But I want to wake the neighbours, that's my whole point. I want everybody to open their eyes.



    love you sam... i mean arun
    you go girl!

    /snicker
     
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Speaking of adle brained trolling, it looks like it's not me that needs to get the clue.

    You said it was time to abandon ship.
    You have yet to abandon ship.
    QED, it's still idle talk.
     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    ahh
    progress
    but not "more"

    /chortle

    this is like being raked incessantly over the coals for not keeping a new years resolution i made say.. 5 years ago.

    i must commend you, noob
    you got mad skillz
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Oh. No.
    Call. The. Burn. Unit.
    (Note the attempt to indicate sarcasm with the un-neccessary punctuation to indicate an artificial stilted tone of horror).
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    Whirled peas

    You noticed?

    The only actual question left is if we're really going to enforce this ultimately stupid and illiterate fantasy standard, or if, having accomplished the short-term goal, people will "suddenly" realize how wrong they were, and decide we need to go back to something less insane.

    I think we both know the answer to that. I would hope to be proved wrong, but I might also hope for world peace by the middle of next week.
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    well its not as if we haven't seen this character's crazed vendettas before
    the guy gets what he wants then chills
    it just that its getting really brazen and particularly insidious now
    james now has no qualms about openly threatening dissenting opinion with repercussions
     
  23. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    That's fine. You haven't, as far as I know, given SAM the responsibility for changing your opinions or sympathies. You took control of something that bothered you. There is the ignore function, for those who do not know about it. One can put a person one dislikes or considers a troll or spammer on ignore and then their posts take up almost no space and cannot be read unless you specifically choose to.

    The people making claims that she is making them _____________ really need to take control of their own minds and lives. Here is an instance where one can. We may not be able to ignore our bosses or in-laws, but here on sciforums we can totally ignore someone in a technologically simple way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page