Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Warning for asking a question via PM

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Bells, after that comment this was posted by Tiassa:



    So I had to go over the "present situation and the issues leading thereunto" and I had to do it NOW.
    Which is why you PM'ed me nearly 3 hours before Tiassa posted and tried to convince me of how right you were about the oil issue?



    Time of your PM: Today, 04:43 AM
    Time of Tiassa's post: Today, 07:07 AM


    Time you claimed you had let it go: Yesterday, 06:06 PM


    You can stop lying now.

  2. #62
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Nope.
    Since the position, that the US suddenly became a NET exporter of OIL, is SO wrong it clearly has no political merit one way or the other.
    Do you actually think that, or do you just think it sounds truthy enough to fool your audience?

    It is beyond dispute that the question of US oil sourcing and production is a major political issue, including in the current Presidential race and in active threads at SciForums. You would have to be a fool to deny that.

    That said, there is - again - substantial political "merit" in establishing yourself - our local GOP mouthpiece - as having a better grasp on the facts than one Tiassa - an outspoken liberal around here. Doubly so on a heavily politicized, election-relevant topic like oil supply issues. It advances your discursive supremacy, and undercuts his. Obviously that aspect is much more important to you than any of the actual first-order content here (the fact that such doesn't merit the capital case you've made out of it being - again - one of the premises here). Note the language you've used - Tiassa's statement "cannot be allowed to stand," etc. You're explicitly concerned with controlling the discourse and advancing your own discursive supremacy. Else, why are you arrogating the role of evaluating which statements can be "allowed to stand" and appointing yourself enforcer of such?

    Which was my entire, explicit point, stated very clearly multiple times now. What do you think you're proving by going out of your way to miss it?

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Indeed my first response to him after that error was to give him the data to easily correct his post, to state that we had become a Net Exporter of Oil Products for the first time in 49 years, and I also gave him the easy out, as I suggested his mistake was simply caused by a badly written headline.

    Hardly the post of someone trying to Bully anyone.

    Or make it into anything political.
    On the contrary - your little magnanimity ploy there is a standard tactic for pursuing discursive supremcy. You not only strike a pose as being better-informed and a more careful reader, but also characterize yourself as aloof and invite your target to validate this image by admitting error and thanking you for your insight and beneficence.

    Regardless, you need to come to grips with the fact that any interaction between yourself and Tiassa is necessarily going to be politicized, regardless of what you think your intentions are. You've systematically built for yourself here a persona as a GOP mouthpiece - consequently, nothing you do here can avoid politicization. Even simple questions of seemingly apolitical fact are subsumed into your project of building discursive supremacy. This is the bed you've made for yourself, and nobody has any obligation to adopt any sort of naivety about such when assessing your statements here.

  3. #63
    Bells, you just posted this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bells
    as does the mega long post above makes me think that you can't let this go and that this thread was not to query about the warning you received but to again try to find yet another avenue to show just how right you are and how the moderator in question is wrong about the oil issue.
    But that is not true because the first mention of OIL in this thread was by James in post 45

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=45

    And that came AFTER Tiassa's dictate to me that I go over the "present situation and the issues leading thereunto"

    Which is what led to the required Mega Post on the issue.

    I had no choice.

    My PM to you was done off the forum so as to not bring up the issue in public and only because you made this statement: We reviewed the issue Arthur, and I do not believe you are right. So I sent you a short PM on the actual issue.

    I was not intending when I asked this question in SFOG to again discuss this issue, nor did I even mention the mod in question.

    And so everybody else is clear, I sent Bells exactly 1 PM on the subject.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Do you actually think that, or do you just think it sounds truthy enough to fool your audience?

    It is beyond dispute that the question of US oil sourcing and production is a major political issue, including in the current Presidential race and in active threads at SciForums. You would have to be a fool to deny that.
    And I don't deny that increasing the production of our own oil is a political issue.

    But we are talking about with things like ANWR and increased offshore maybe increasing it by one or two million barrels a day and doing things to reduce our consumption a bit (we are growing as a nation though) but we import nearly 9 million barrels of oil per year and so no party is talking about the US becoming a NET exporter of OIL as a political issue because it simply isn't possible any time soon (as in decades).

  5. #65
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by universaldistress View Post
    From the excerpts Adoucette presents Tiassa would seem to be in the wrong here,
    Do you believe that the excerpts adoucette chose to present constitute a complete, unbiased picture of that issue?

    Or do they, perhaps, present the issue in a light that is favorable to his position?

    Quote Originally Posted by universaldistress View Post
    I would suggest (within this thread's context) the onus is on Tiassa to directly counter Adoucette's claims as regards to the inceptive argument of this whole debacle,
    That was done to death, months ago. And then it was done again and again.

    We're at this juncture because adoucette is incapable of letting the issue go, and instead is intent on making a capital case out of it.

    You'll notice that he has a lot of trouble letting contentious issues go, even when he says he's going to do exactly that. This is visible in this very thread, as well as several others currently active on the forums.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Bells, you just posted this:



    But that is not true because the first mention of OIL in this thread was by James in post 45

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...0&postcount=45

    And that came AFTER Tiassa's dictate to me that I go over the "present situation and the issues leading thereunto"

    Which is what led to the required Mega Post on the issue.

    I had no choice.

    My PM to you was done off the forum so as to not bring up the issue in public and only because you made this statement: We reviewed the issue Arthur, and I do not believe you are right. So I sent you a short PM on the actual issue.

    I was not intending when I asked this question in SFOG to again discuss this issue, nor did I even mention the mod in question.

    And so everybody else is clear, I sent Bells exactly 1 PM on the subject.
    I never said you sent me more than 1 PM. I had also explicitly stated before you sent me said PM that who is right in regards to the oil issue is irrelevant to the complaint made in this thread. You started this thread based on the premise that you received a warning after many PM's to and from between you and a moderator and after you were warned to stop trolling. The issue of whether you or Tiassa is wrong on the oil issue does not matter here. What is of concern is whether a moderator acted outside of his boundaries.

    And yet, even before Tiassa posted in this thread, you claimed you had let it go, and even after I say to you, I don't think you are right and reiterate that that is really beside the point and again said what the point was, you still sent me a PM trying to argue the point of why you are right about US oil. That is not letting go, Arthur. I had said, I don't care who is right about the oil thing here. You had absolutely zero need to PM me with your side of why you are right about US oil and why such and such from elsewhere on the net who posts here agrees with you. You dragged others into this argument, without the consent of those individuals. It's god damn ridiculous!

    The issue is still being discussed on this forum. You should take your posts about why you think you are right about the oil and post it there. Not PM moderators who think you're wrong about it and who are trying to filter out the noise and deal with the issue SFOG is meant to deal with, and that is your actual supposed concern as to why you started this thread - ie the warning you received for trolling.

    Your argument with Tiassa about the oil issue is noise to me. I don't care about it. I can't quite recall how many times I have told you this now. What I do care about is whether a moderator overstepped his boundaries in issuing you with that warning. After seeing your behaviour in those PM's, frankly, I don't see that he has. You see, we were privy to that whole argument via PM.

    And I am not alone. It is a rare thing to have quite so many moderators actually agree on something Arthur. In that, I have to congratulate you. You managed to get more than half the staff to actually agree on something. Others just haven't really bothered to comment. Maybe because of time constraints or maybe because of the subject matter (ie you) that they can't really be stuffed. Who knows, but thus far, even those who normally remain silent on such issues have spoken out that you were trolling.

    You're trying to weasle out of your true reasons for starting this thread. It wasn't really to post concerns about a moderator's actions. It is because of this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Adoucette
    I sincerely believe that the moderator is wrong on the issue, and I've presented pages and pages of proof that is the case and yet the moderator won't admit it,
    You knew you were talking about the oil issue. And so did the staff. So really, trying to say that James brought up the oil issue first in this thread? Who are you trying to fool here Arthur? Do you assume we are all stupid?

    You were asked, repeatedly, to take your concerns about the moderator's actions to PM to an administrator of this site, as per the rules of this site. You wilfully ignored it, lied about letting it go, sent PM's to the staff trying to convince them of how right you are about the oil issue, tried to play dumb and say it's not your fault the oil issue came up in this thread when the whole premise of your OP was about the oil issue.. And then, to top it off, you then tried to claim you weren't really complaining about the moderator's actions.

    How stupid do you think we actually are?

    This is just another platform for you to try to convince everyone that you are right. Unfortunately, you seemed to be under the mistaken belief that if you tried to word it as a moderator complaint in this sub-forum, that it would save you from moderation. Unfortunately for you, you were wrong about that too. And now, it is looking like you will face moderation. Not because you complained about a moderator, but because you breached the rules of this site by posting PM's (explicit rules against that), disregarded and ignored the rules about taking it to an administrator via PM's and then repeatedly ignoring moderator requests and warnings to take your complaint about a moderator to the administrator of this fight, what you did instead was to PM him why you were right about the oil issue. Good work..

  7. #67
    Extravagantly Introverted ... universaldistress's Avatar
    Posts
    1,464
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Do you believe that the excerpts adoucette chose to present constitute a complete, unbiased picture of that issue?

    Or do they, perhaps, present the issue in a light that is favorable to his position?
    Of course the latter, but I am intrigued now. Maybe someone could post links to Tiassa's effective rebuttals?



    That was done to death, months ago. And then it was done again and again.
    Missed it

    We're at this juncture because adoucette is incapable of letting the issue go, and instead is intent on making a capital case out of it.
    So why not let it be put to bed in OG. Get a panel of peers (in effect a jury) to review the case OPENLY, and rule whether the original argument is in favour of Adoucette. Then Adoucette can apologise and they can move on.

    You'll notice that he has a lot of trouble letting contentious issues go, even when he says he's going to do exactly that. This is visible in this very thread, as well as several others currently active on the forums.
    Indeed I have. He can't let anything go. Even when proven wrong he ignores the defeated lines and draws on one tangential point to continue his any-directioned defense of unsavoury rightist BS; but he is a formidable/tenacious researcher, and may have caught Tiassa on this one?

    But this case could be viewed independently? Especially if it is being used within a body of evidence against him?
    Last edited by universaldistress; 05-03-12 at 08:05 PM.

  8. #68
    Goodbye authur, we won't miss you and if we do we can always just replace your posts with a fox "news" article on whatever the issue is

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by universaldistress View Post
    Of course the latter, but I am intrigued now. Maybe someone could post links to Tiassa's effective rebuttals?
    Arthur actually missed the point.

    Which makes this even more, well, never mind. Would ironic be the right word?

    Here is Tiassa's comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa
    According to the above-cited rule I.29, pertaining to repeat offenders, staff perceptions seem, somewhat consistently, to regard the complainant in this category. The only question in that context is whether the perceptions of offense are legitimate.

    Similarly, according to the above-cited rule I.15, pertaining to the posting of false or misleading information, the complainant has every appearance of misrepresenting the present situation and the issues leading thereunto. The only question in that context is whether that appearance is a valid perception.

    The complainant will be afforded twenty-four hours to respond in his own defense. We will consider that response. He should not expect to win any argument, but, rather, demonstrate his case honestly in order to forestall disciplinary action pertaining to the appearance of disingenuous argument in this complaint thread.
    In other words, we weren't asking for Arthur to prove that he was right about the oil issue. We were asking him to defend himself for the misrepresentation of this thread and his having breached this site's rules - ie the complaints thread that is not a complaint's thread and the huge fact that he tried to misrepresent to the general public that he was given a warning for asking a moderator a question, when that was clearly not the case. The "present situation" Tiassa speaks of is not the oil debate, but his misrepresentation of the subject matter of this thread - ie the warning he received..

    Arthur, unfortunately, did not address that at all. What he did instead was to again try to prove that he is correct about the oil issue. As we have been trying to get Arthur to understand now, it is not about who is right about US oil, but his misrepresentation of what really happened leading up to his receiving the warning. Which is what Tiassa had given him 24 hours to address. And he has thus far, failed to do so, even with many prompts from me to get him to address that. He was supposed to have tried to explain his having breached this site's rules to avert moderation, instead he used that opportunity to try to prove that he is right about US oil.

  10. #70
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,675

    Cool Mod Hat — Closure

    Mod Hat — Closure

    Given that the complainant, granted explicit permission to review in this thread the relevant private messages and chose not to, and considering that the response offered in defense of apparent misrepresentations in the thread title and topic posts was to pursue instead the ongoing dispute about what definitions of oil—i.e., essentially whether the word is limited to crude petroleum or inclusive of a larger industrial spectrum—there is nothing to disabuse the perception of willful deception in the proposition that a warning was issued "for asking a question".

    As it is evident through the course of four posts offered by the complainant over the last twenty-four hours that he does not intend to address the issue of willful misrepresentation in opening this discussion, the thread is now closed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. By audric in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 01-04-12, 08:43 PM
    Replies: 1
  2. By S.A.M. in forum Politics
    Last Post: 11-09-11, 04:16 PM
    Replies: 103
  3. By Mind Over Matter in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 09-23-11, 11:14 AM
    Replies: 60
  4. By orcot in forum Science & Society
    Last Post: 05-13-11, 02:26 PM
    Replies: 40
  5. By Michael in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 10-06-08, 01:50 PM
    Replies: 44

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •