No confidence in James R as administrator [public copy]

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Tiassa, Dec 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    [Note from James R: this thread is copied for reference from the Moderator's forum, at Tiassa's insistence. Posts by moderators other than James R and Tiassa have been removed, and their locations in the thread noted in comments such as this one.]

    ----
    Declaration of NO CONFIDENCE in James R as Administrator

    Over the years, Sciforums has endured many controversies. Indeed, conflicting perspectives are a driving force behind the idea of a bulletin board forum like ours. We have, as moderators and administrators, done our best to deal with these issues, and in some cases we have, unfortunately, come up short.

    It is with deep regret that I hereby issue a personal declaration of no confidence in James R as an administrator at Sciforums. He generally presents a sane and decent face, though I have in the past disagreed with him on certain issues and found some of his arguments strange. However, in issues pertaining to political and cultural debates at Sciforums, specifically as relates to S.A.M., I find his outlook and actions reprehensible, and a denigration of our community.

    We, as the governing officials at Sciforums, can certainly make mistakes. But James has demonstrated a clear pattern of hostility against S.A.M., and thus further empowered the genuine bigots in our community. His conduct is unacceptable.

    Most recently, he has suspended S.A.M. for "threatening" another member. As I previously noted in that controversy, yes, I can sympathize with FellowTraveler's complaint if I imagine myself with the reading comprehension of a lobotomized bonobo, but no, I'm not setting the bar so low.

    Apparently, James is.

    A preface in summary: In a thread about mercenaries operating in Pakistan, S.A.M. and I engaged in barely-relevant digression about cognitive dissonance in the general American outlook on the war. This portion involves posts #5, 7, 9, 11-12, 15, 16, and 19 on the first page, and #21 and 23 on the second.

    FellowTraveler: At #26, FellowTraveler inserted himself into this discussion by replying to S.A.M.:

    "REPLY: YOU thank your lucky stars there are men and women out there defending you against these bastards that would kill you for the fun of it. Was that attack on New York a pipedream ? Get real NOW. ...traveler"​

    What FT has essentially said in his ignorance is that S.A.M. should thank her lucky stars for being suspected, harassed, and targeted by American security paranoia, that civilians of her faith are being slaughtered in dubious wars around the world with no clear goal or foreseeable end. S.A.M. should, in FT's opinion, be thankful for such persecution.

    This post earned the "threat" from S.A.M.:

    "Er, I happen to be one of those who will chop your head for throwing white phosphorus on my families. You could hardly blame me for not wanting an armed killer like you in my home."​

    It should be noted that the current form of FT's post is an edited version. S.A.M. responded to that edit with one of her own, so that her post now reads:

    "Er, I happen to be one of those who will chop your head kill you for the fun of it for throwing white phosphorus on my families. You could hardly blame me for not wanting an armed killer like you in my home."​

    In either case, the point was to demonstrate that FT had guessed wrongly: S.A.M. is not one of those who will thank her lucky stars for the men and women invading Muslim countries and slaughtering civilians.

    Indeed, we have further context in subsequent posts. FellowTaveler responded:

    "REPLY: So you are an Islamist are you ? Want to meet me ? ...TRAVELER"​

    To which S.A.M. made her point clear for anyone who wasn't actually following the discussion:

    "Why, are you coming to my country to impose your values with guns too?

    Thanks, but we already have home grown fundamentalists of all religions, we don't need to import foreign Mindless Morons too.
    "​

    So where is the actual "threat"?

    Let us think about it as if it wasn't S.A.M.

    Imagine a gun-control debate. Imagine that white, Christian, American gun owner who says, "I would shoot you in the head if I came home and found you raping my daughter."

    Would that member be suspended? I doubt it. James is invoking what appears to be either a unique or new standard for S.A.M.

    The lesson that emerges from this incident is simply that if one complains loudly and often enough about S.A.M., James will take action against her without regard to the merits of the claim.

    This is an unacceptable standard. I categorically refuse to enforce James' absurd standard of what constitutes a threat. To the other, I cannot abide by unequal enforcement of the rules, especially to satisfy an administrator's personal grudges.

    Thus I must declare no confidence in James R as an administrator at Sciforums.

    S.A.M.'s current suspension should be lifted immediately. But even that can't change the record of bigoted, unequal enforcement of the rules as James has established in issues related to S.A.M.

    Related Information:

    • Thread, "FellowTraveler"
    • Warning log, #2439535/400"
    • Thread, "Forum member S.A.M. just threatenened to chop my head off" (Cesspool via EM&J)
    • Thread "I was threatenened by S.A.M. , a forum member, he said he would chop my head off" (Cesspool via EM&J)
    • EM&J Action Notes, #2439491/65
    • EM&J Action Notes, #2439537/66
    • EM&J Action Notes, #2439878/67
    • There are additional posts on the subject in the Temporary Ban log, but little of substance as of this writing; see #785-791.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Great.

    In return, I declare my confidence that Tiassa will side with SAM no matter how bigoted she is. Moreover, he advocates special treatment for SAM over other posters.

    I note that Tiassa banned fellowtraveler for three days for his threats to meet SAM with a few friends, to do her violence etc., and rightly so. I agree 100% with that action. However, Tiassa neglected the other half of this particular moderation task - to sanction SAM for her threat to fellowtraveler. Specifically:

    SAM explicitly threatens that "I ... will chop your head...".

    Now, maybe to Tiassa this reads as some kind of political statement or some kind of reaction to fellowtraveler's prior posts. I don't actually care as to who started things, or what went before. What we have here is one member of sciforums community directly threatening to kill another member. Never mind that we all know these two will never meet, that both of them are posturing etc. We have always treated threats of violence seriously in the past, and I have no intention of changing that policy now. If people can't maintain the most basic level of civility, they should not be posting on sciforums.

    I banned SAM for 3 days for her threat. I considered that this was an appropriate match for Tiassa's ban of fellowtraveler. I also mention that SAM, by rights, should have attracted a much longer ban as a repeat offender, so 3 days is lenient.

    As it happens, before I saw this thread I had also been contacted by PM by another member arguing in SAM's favour. Moreover, I was previously aware of Tiassa's complaint. While my personal opinion is that a 3 day ban was fine for SAM, I have taken the complaints into consideration and reduced SAM's ban to 1 day. (Do not think that I did this because of the current thread. This was done before I read this thread.)

    Now, if there is a groundswell of opinion from other moderators in agreement with Tiassa's no confidence motion, I will happily resign as an administrator of sciforums, so please let me know what you all think.

    I am on record as saying that I think SAM's contributions to sciforums have become, on balance, detrimental to this forum. But I do not have any kind of vendetta against her. If people think I have acted unfairly towards her in any moderating action, let's discuss it as a moderator group.

    Practically every time I have moderated SAM in the past few months, Tiassa has jumped to her defence. It always seems to be the other poster's fault, and SAM is always squeaky clean, apparently. How I see that is that Tiassa has a bias. Now I don't think that's a bad thing. I like to hear alternative views. I'd like to hear what other moderators think.

    I have been hostile to SAM at times, but have never, to my knowledge, taken any moderator action against her in any conversation between the two of us. SAM has posted many bigoted threads. She plays stupid practically all the time. Her debating style lacks good faith. But I've said all that before. And none of it means I want to see her permanently banned (or even temporarily) - as long as she abides by the guidelines we expect all other posters to follow. Longevity on the forum, or number of posts, is no excuse for unequal treatment.

    This is not the same thing as occurred here. This is a counterfactual situation. It's a fine line, and context could be important, but on the face of it there is no direct threat here. This is not "I want to kill you". This is "I would kill you if certain circumstances were satisfied."

    This incident was hard to miss. fellowtraveler posted TWO complaint threads. Tiassa posted in at least 3 separate moderator threads about the matter. A report was filed by fellowtraveler. I did not go looking for reasons to ban SAM. fellowtraveler was the worse offender here, without doubt, but his later offenses were triggered, once again, by SAM's behaviour - in this case her initial threat to him.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    37,875
    Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

    James

    What are we to think of an administrator who lies to us? Really, do you think dishonesty will help this situation?

    This is clearly a lie, as demonstrated by the existing record. From the Temporary Ban log:

    FellowTraveler

    I have issued a three-day suspension against FellowTraveler for overriding moderator action. Specifically, I closed an attack thread in EM&J, and he went and opened another.

    See also: Thread on FT's conduct; Warnings log.

    (Random fun note: I ended up doing a quadruple take until I figured it out, but it confused the hell out of me at first because the thread number for the first was 98267, and the second 98276.)

    Let us revisit that first sentence: "I have issued a three-day suspension against FellowTraveler for overriding moderator action."

    And the thread concerning FellowTraveler's conduct:

    So FellowTraveler decided to have another go at it.

    I've issued a three-day suspension for overriding moderator action. All notes are logged where they need to be ... I think. Let me know if I missed anything.

    (And that oughta teach me to go to bed when a lunatic is running amok ....)

    So what does it say in that middle paragraph? "I've issued a three-day suspension for overriding moderator action."

    And let us go to the Ban List:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And what is the reason publicly listed for FellowTraveler's suspension? "Override of moderator action; reposting attack thread after closure".

    Now, James, you note that I posted in three separate threads about the matter. The reason for FellowTraveler's suspension was noted in two of those, and, furthermore, the same reason appears in the Ban List. Is there something confusing about why I suspended FellowTraveler?

    Should I even add those dreaded words, "common sense"? The "threat" occurred in World Events. That's not my jurisdiction. Aside from spammers hitting the board, I rarely exercise my green ink in WE&P, and I'm pretty sure I've never suspended anyone specifically for offenses occurring in those subfora. The reason for the suspension was conduct that occurred within my jurisdiction.

    What authority, aside from the system permission to issue suspensions of any regular member, have I to sanction conduct in World Events?

    Give me the keys, then. If I am to sanction behavior in World Events, then I want official jurisdiction.

    The thing is that all of this, James, points to the fact that your justification—

    —is false. One can only wonder where you got the idea that I suspended FellowTraveler for his conduct in World Events. To the one, WE isn't my jurisdiction. To the other, I think I was pretty damn clear about why I sent FT.

    I just don't get who you think you're fooling. To wit:

    You might actually have a point here. After all, I've always argued that S.A.M. is pure, right? I mean, I've never criticized her approach and then pointed out that I don't think she's doing anything that we allow and even encourage from other people, right? I've never suggested, have I, that I feel as if we abide by a separate standard for S.A.M. than everyone else?

    My argument has always been that S.A.M. never makes any mistakes, hasn't it?

    Are you not lying? That is, do you really see the situation as such? In that case, I think you're making my point. Would you like me to go comb the record for the posts in which I have been critical of S.A.M.'s approach, and her failure to recognize that it's just not working?

    As to the substance of the threat, it's hard to pull from your response, sir. You present in one instance a contextually-snipped version—

    —but also make a strange argument that, presently, escapes me:

    This is not the same thing, but this is the same thing? Obviously I'm missing something. No, really. I'm not being sarcastic. What the hell am I missing?

    Was that before or after I told him to file a report and stop mucking up EM&J with attack threads? Not that it matters:

    Complain about S.A.M., and thou shalt receive. One need not go looking for a reason. Generally speaking, it's not a week at Sciforums if someone isn't pissed at her for something.

    I just don't see the threat. And if it wasn't S.A.M., I don't think you would, either.

    Part of the longstanding problem with S.A.M.-related issues is the merit of complaints. There is an old Simpsons episode where a bunch of people crowd into Mayor Quimby's office to shout about ... well, it was either bears or taxes or immigrants. The Mayor looks to his assistant and asks, "Are they getting louder, or dumber?" The assistant checks a clipboard and says, "Louder, sir." So Mayor Quimby resolves to take action.

    And that's a large part of what we've done with S.A.M.-related issues. The difference isn't necessarily invested in how she posts, but the produce thereof. More familiar, pro-Western rhetoric of the same style doesn't generate nearly as many complaints, attack threads, or other such bullshit. But, you know, the key to getting action is apparently not the merit of the complaint, but whether or not one complains loudly and frequently enough. Eventually, some just got sick of hearing about S.A.M. And that, obviously, is her fault. Right?

    Your finding of a threat is utterly without merit. And, to judge by the lies you just posted, it is also without good faith.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    Tiassa:

    You make some valid points. I ought to have been more careful in responding to your vote of no confidence.

    I concede that you banned fellowtraveler for overriding moderator action (yours). Moreover, I concede that you are not expected to moderate in the World Events forum. Since I oversee all forums I don't tend to notice the boundaries in the way that you obviously do.

    Now, I'm not sure whether you are arguing that fellowtraveler would not have merited a ban for issuing death threats to SAM. If so, then respectfully I disagree with you.

    I do not think it particularly important that you ended up banning him for overriding your action in closing a complaint thread about SAM. What led to that in the first place is the original series of actions - SAM's threat, his reaction and complaint, his continued whining after your initial response, etc. In sanctioning SAM, I went back to the source of the trouble. If I had seen this before you did, I would have banned both participants for death threats and been done with it.

    All I can say is that every time I have taken action against SAM in the past few months, you've been one of the first to spring to her defence.

    If it makes you feel better, go right ahead. I'm sure you'll find a few examples.

    Remember, though, this isn't really about you. You started a thread critical of me, so there's no need for you to defend yourself. Nobody is attacking you.

    I quoted her post in full.

    Sorry, I was unclear. I used the word "this" for two different things. Let me clarify:

    Contrast the SAM/fellowtraveler situation in which direct, unconditional, threats were made.

    I can check for you if you like, but I don't really think it matters.

    Half right. Yes, I receive complaints about SAM all the time from various people. No, that doesn't mean automatic punitive action against SAM. Mostly no action is taken, because most complaints amount to complaints about SAM's methods of argument, trolling etc., which usually do not amount to breaches of the forum rules (though there are exceptions).

    Nonsense. What could be clearer than "I will chop your head"?

    Of course you don't count any of SAM's plethora of anti-Western threads as attack threads.

    To a degree, yes. SAM sets out to be a provocateur. If you doubt that, just ask her.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    This is the picture

    I never even noticed that FT threatened S.A.M. All I noticed was some macho chest-beating, the equivalent of, "Let's fight at the bike rack after school."

    Don't get me wrong: as soon as I saw the first attack thread in EM&J, I knew exactly what post FT was talking about, and I simply disagreed with the idea that S.A.M. threatened him.

    And I still do.

    Well, this is an issue in which I think your judgment concerning S.A.M. is clouded. Her statement was a blunt correction of FT's misplaced, unfounded moralism. She is not one protected by the men and women out there; she is in their crosshairs. And perhaps FT's edit of his own post was successful; her response reflected his terminology—that's why she edited her own post in response to his edit.

    I would point you to her use of the word, "Er". This is a term that denotes hesitance and confusion. In the United States, people commonly use, "Um", or, "Uh". Personally, I use, "Er", more than most, but that's probably because I read too much Douglas Adams over the years.

    And then I would ask you to consider the exchange as if they were talking over a table. Now, maybe Australia is devoid of ranting veterans that like to remind everyone how grateful they ought to be, but this is a common thing in the United States.

    FellowTraveler: YOU thank your lucky stars there are men and women out there defending you against these bastards that would kill you for the fun of it. Was that attack on New York a pipedream ? Get real NOW.

    S.A.M.: Er, I happen to be one of those who will chop your head for throwing white phosphorus on my families. You could hardly blame me for not wanting an armed killer like you in my home.

    She is correcting a mistaken notion, not threatening anyone. See, when FT edited his post, the apparent context of S.A.M.'s shifted. To that end, you've been conned. FT made a statement; S.A.M. matched him; FT altered his post and complained; you took the bait.

    Furthermore—

    —what you responded to or relied on was the context of your snipped version. And perhaps here we encounter a cultural conflict:

    S.A.M. did not issue a direct, unconditional threat. But as you haven't explained how you perceive the direct, unconditional threat, I'm sort of left guessing. Hence, a potential cultural conflict:

    "Er, I happen to be one of those who will chop your head for throwing white phosphorus on my families. You could hardly blame me for not wanting an armed killer like you in my home."

    See the boldfaced part above? There's your condition. If you have any doubt, the subsequent sentence should make it clear enough.

    In the United States—where S.A.M. did live for a couple years—people use the word "for" in exactly this context. I had not accounted for this potential cultural difference 'twixt Americans and Australians when I offered my comparative example. To Americans, there isn't any practical difference.

    Or we could simply look at a simple question: Has FellowTraveler committed atrocities against S.A.M.'s family? Nope. Then she's not about to come after his head.

    Nor do I. At most, it would only dim my view of FellowTraveler for not giving the moderators time to handle the situation before going on his cross-forum spree.

    Given some of the things S.A.M. has been sanctioned for, that doesn't help much. My underlying complaint with the S.A.M. situation is that we have sanctioned her before for doing what other people do. The two reasons she stands out in this sense are that she is the most prolific poster at Sciforums (and yes, I used to encounter the strangest complaints when I was that person), and the conclusions she reaches are off the conventional wisdom of the Western and American themes that dominate discussion at Sciforums.

    What could be clearer than the condition? You keep coming back to try to isolate one part of a statement. You're assessing, as such, less than half the statement and applying that verdict to the whole.

    Depends on the thread. Far more often than not, people's complaints about her anti-Western attacks are bullshit. Asguard, whom we all know I respect, is less accurate in his critique of American government than S.A.M. in her critque of the West.

    Did you ever notice what happens when the discussion gives her something more substantial than jingoism and party lines to work with? Read through our digression in the Blackwater thread. I have virtually zero problems communicating with her, in part because I don't presume the worst of her. Original sin. Everyone is evil. Look for the worst possible construction of what someone says. It's a difficult way to go through life, and I don't understand why people choose it.

    I'm probably better acquainted with her method than you are. Hell, I can discuss it with her at pretty much any time. Indeed, my first communication with her about this situation (pull pmid=238120 from my sent messages, if you like) read, in part:

    And, indeed, she even explained it to FT at one point. See "Owning a person", deleted post at #107:

    "English grammer does not differentiate between second person you and third person you [plural]. However even I would have thought that you would recognise the Castle Law when you heard it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States
    "

    And even that wasn't clear enough for FellowTraveler. So she tried to clarify yet again (deleted post at #117):

    "You seem to be a singularly dense and paranoid person. I apologise for overestimating your ability to comprehend. It would be unkind to continue this line of conversation, rest assured, I have no designs on your person, criminal or otherwise."

    And yet he persisted, even opening a new attack thread in EM&J.

    Quite clearly, FT wanted a fight.

    Quite clearly, FT was willing to be deceptive.

    Quite clearly, you did exactly what FT was hoping.

    You bit. You got conned. And you made it easy because of how you view S.A.M.

    One sad irony of this is that I nearly made a joke about this exact situation. Around 4:30 this morning (4:15 by the Sciforums clock), I told S.A.M. I was checking out to get some sleep, and noted, "I'll figure out any new disasters later, but I'm hoping he's gotten the point and everything else will be someone else's mess." That sentence was the final product of a process that was much funnier to me than it should have been. The original sentence had been about handing the issue up the ladder, and then I thought, "To James. Uh-oh." And then I sort of laughed at myself for the grotesque presumption, and by the time I stopped giggling at my own stupidity, that is the sentence I came up with.

    I sometimes joke that I am the anti-prophet, meaning that one should bet against whatever prediction I make. And this was one of those cases. I almost shared the joke with S.A.M., but figured it wasn't worth it because, well, I really didn't think you would do it.

    I really thought what she wrote was that apparent. More fool, me.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    [Note: 2 posts from moderators other than Tiassa and James R appeared before this post in the thread]

    Tiassa:

    Ok. You've convinced me. I'll lift SAM's ban right now.

    She really ought to be more careful, though. I have a very low tolerance for threats made by one member to another. They just push my buttons, no matter who they come from. I can see now what SAM probably meant, but her post did read like a threat to me. madanthonywayne is right - if she had used the word "would" rather than "will" this misunderstanding may not have occurred.

    Note especially that the main problem here was not my misunderstanding of her post, but fellowtraveler's. He obviously read it as a threat. I don't think he was lying when he complained about it - he was honestly affronted. And that was only exacerbated by his perception that the moderators were not taking action. He still deserves his ban for what he posted later (some of which has been deleted), of course.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,875
    She is only what you presume her to be

    [Note: At this point in the thread, one other moderator made one post, and Tiassa posted a reply to that moderator. This is Tiassa's post immediately following his reply to the other moderator.]

    Okay, okay, that was harsh, but look: S.A.M.'s arguments are a lot more flexible than people give her credit for. Like anyone else, it's a matter of how her arguments are addressed.

    You know, sometimes with Madanthonywayne, he'll post something I find egregious and I'll blister him for it. Responding to that, he'll ask what the problem is, and slowly we'll work our way back to a comparatively calm discussion of underlying principles. It's almost becoming something of a routine for us; take that for what you will.

    But nobody ever does this with S.A.M., and, yes, I'm aware that she doesn't necessarily help avoid or reduce the conflict. But as I watch around this website, the stressor in S.A.M.-related issues is that so few people around here seem to understand where she's coming from. True enough, those who demonstrate the best understanding of S.A.M.'s point of origin for perspective can easily and frequently be taxed (Bells, I'm looking in your direction on that one), but at least half the problem with S.A.M. is other people. I point again to the digression in the Blackwater thread I noted in the opening post; this is a classic example of how if you look around for something that S.A.M.'s argument applies to, it is easy enough to fill her in on what she's overlooking. And in these cases, she actually receives the material openly instead of swatting it away.

    To wit, look at what FellowTraveler did there. S.A.M. and I were discussing an aspect of American society that, while it might seem irrelevant to other people, was extremely relevant to the two of us. We were examining a process at work in what S.A.M.'s complaint about American society perceived, considering how it worked in other aspects of American life: war, family, commerce, &c. This was slowly answering S.A.M.'s fundamental question.

    And what did FellowTraveler check in with? A load of bluster. He entered aiming to pick a fight, but here's the thing: When he laid into S.A.M. for her response to one of my posts, he did exactly what "everybody else" does. He presumed the narrowest, worst context he could imagine, and absolutely ignored the real content and perspective of what he was reacting to. Compare his clueless response to mine, which addressed a context specifically relevant to S.A.M. and me, and thus to S.A.M.'s post.

    But, really, he didn't do anything that other people ("everybody else") don't do around here. Not a thread goes by in politics in which the opponent doesn't assert the context for the proposal. That is, despite what people are actually saying, the respondents write the context for those words. To the one, this is a natural human process: we establish what things mean to us. But that is insufficient; we must also recognize what it means to the other. While the primary responsibility of communication is invested in the broadcasting party, the receiver must necessarily at least recognize what is transmitted in common language.

    Part of what happened in this incident is that a specific context was assigned to S.A.M.'s words that we would not necessarily assign did the broadcasting party not already stand out in a negative context. We have at least two grammatical suggestions in this thread that would make the sentence more "correct" and "understandable", but come on. I'm an American. The things I have to interpret just talking to a clerk in a store or a passing face on the street far exceed this. I can't imagine treating the language so exactingly on a practical, daily basis. Communicating with anyone would be impossible. Go read a transcript of spoken word, like a talk show or even a professional lecture. You might sit and listen to a speaker on your local public radio and understand every word he says, and then read the transcript and have difficulty making heads or tails of it. We figure out what other people mean, even sometimes when it is the exact opposite of what they actually said.

    No, seriously. Really. Sometimes people leave out a critical word like "no" or "not", but we still know exactly what they mean because they didn't magically change their opinion on an issue in the last five seconds and not tell you.

    People do that with S.A.M. a lot less. Counte and Baron do it less with me, and I probably do it less with them. We all do it to some degree. This is human. We are naturally harder on what we disagree with.

    And S.A.M. stands out because she sees the world differently than most of us. We don't as often, or as severely, notice other people doing what we are supposed to so loathe about S.A.M. because their conclusions, even if we disagree with them, still sound familiar.

    I see this happen all the time in the world around me. It is what passes for scholarly debate on cable news networks. It is becoming a standard of sorts.

    That it happens is not evil. What is wrong and evil is when people keep piling onto what they so disdain; S.A.M. is becoming more and more evil because she must. That's all that is happening. She's not really doing anything hideously wrong in terms of what goes on around Sciforums. But she sticks out, she's the most prolific among us, and as a result we the moderators get all sorts of headaches whether the complaints have any merit or not. And we keep seeing it over and over and over again, and it stands out compared to everything else because it looks different, and because it is easy for many to fundamentally disagree with her.

    We are always to presume against her. She becomes more evil because we need her to be in order to justify our increasing frustration. That is why she is a worthless, conniving bitch.

    And that's what I choose not to take part in. That's why I see the situation so differently than, say, James or Fraggle. We're all human, and however we use that fact to justify our own shortcomings, we also owe to those with whom we disagree. Her presuppositions aren't necessarily any more wrong than anyone else's. But nobody cares what they mean. Nobody cares what makes them right or wrong. All they care about is that she is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    After a while, this farce simply becomes tiresome.

    [Note: 4 posts appeared in the thread following the current post. These were from moderators other than James R and Tiassa.]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page