Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

[James R]

JDawg:

I don't see how the questions are related. Pseudoscience isn't an affront to humanity.

Try telling quadphonics that!

I also don't see how your answer to Quad would work as an answer to me. That this place is for non-scientists (and by extension non-philosophers) but that doesn't mean we should have to put up with hate speech and things of that nature.

Questioning the holocaust isn't automatically hate speech, though, is it? In my opinion, you should need more than just "I don't believe there were gassing at Auschwitz" to be done for hate speech.

That's kind of nitpicky, I'd say. I said Islam was a corrosive element--a statement which I stand by, but one that I could easily make about any Abrahamic faith--and Geoff was kind enough to point out that I was certainly talking about "reactionary" or "fundamentalist" Islam. Then I clarified that I was speaking of "the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags."

At any rate, I'm no bigot, and I certainly didn't say anything untrue about the faith in that thread.

I'm sure that some would and do take issue with your views about Islam. But you have not been penalised in any way for expressing them, and I personally have no intention of penalising you.

Personally, I think you're probably not very aware about why Muslim women might choose voluntarily to wear the hijab, or even the burka. But it's not a moderation issue.

I also find it somewhat ironic that Gustav, who usually jumps up and down about free speech, is suddenly all for censorship in this thread.

[Balerion]

Try telling quadphonics that!

I get your point, but we as reasonable people realize there is a difference between saying the sun revolves around the earth and that the Holocaust was a media invention, don't we?

Questioning the holocaust isn't automatically hate speech, though, is it? In my opinion, you should need more than just "I don't believe there were gassing at Auschwitz" to be done for hate speech.

That's right, and I believe he's met that criteria. Accusing Jewish survivors of lying, plus his idolization of Hitler, plus his backing of proponents of racial purity in the Golden Dawn...

Perhaps hate speech was the wrong term. I'm trying to say that he's shown his colors and done far worse than simply asking for the evidence for gassings at Auschwitz.

I'm sure that some would and do take issue with your views about Islam. But you have not been penalised in any way for expressing them, and I personally have no intention of penalising you.

I don't think I should have to thank you for not censoring criticism of Islam like some of your moderators have done, yet I feel compelled to. So, thanks!

Personally, I think you're probably not very aware about why Muslim women might choose voluntarily to wear the hijab, or even the burka. But it's not a moderation issue.

Oh, I'm very aware of why they might choose to. And I'm just as aware that the wholly oppressed are often the greatest defenders of their own oppressors.

I also know that in least one place, it isn't a choice.

I also find it somewhat ironic that Gustav, who usually jumps up and down about free speech, is suddenly all for censorship in this thread.

Forgive me for lowering the level of discourse, but he has a lady-boner for me. This is why I reported him for stalking. I have him on ignore, so it's really no sweat, but when I saw you quoting him I realized he was on this campaign to get me banned.

What can I say? I'm kind of a big deal.

[Gustav]

I personally have no intention of penalising you.

excellent
let it be known that james endorses and encourages slurs against muslim women who wear the burka....

Yes, in this particular context I was referring to the Islam that puts their women in cloth bags

..by allowing that to stand

some administrator, eh folks?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Burka Clad Muslim Women


We the Enlightened of Sciforums offer up an Apology for the Crass Sentiments of Some. Please Excuse Them. If you Decide to Join this Forum, we Promise to Protect you from these Unsavory Characters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gustav]

What can I say? I'm kind of a big deal.

/smile

i can see that.....

Balerion, called the Black Dread, was one of the three great dragons of Aegon the Conqueror and his sisters, that were used to conquer much of Westeros during the War of Conquest.


oooh
black dread!

/awed

[James R]

excellent
let it be known that james endorses and encourages slurs against muslim women who wear the burka....

Excuse me?

Where have I endorsed and encouraged slurs against Muslim women who wear the burka?

Provide the evidence or retract your claim.

..by allowing that to stand

some administrator, eh folks?

Your snide remarks are wearing thin. I advise you to stop and think carefully at this point.

Dear Burka Clad Muslim Women

We the Enlightened of Sciforums offer up an Apology for the Crass Sentiments of Some. Please Excuse Them. If you Decide to Join this Forum, we Promise to Protect you from these Unsavory Characters

Who appointed you Speaker for the "Enlightened of Sciforums"?

----

Edit to add:

On second thoughts, let's just cut to the chase:

Moderator note: Gustav has been banned for 3 days from sciforums for knowingly telling lies and for trolling.

Rightly, this could have been a 1-week ban, but I have decided to be lenient because I was the target of said trolling and lies in this instance.

[Bells]

First, an aside: If I could go back to 2003 and opt out of this stupid screen name, I would. In a heartbeat. And not just because I'd be 22 years old again. You have no idea how bad it sucks to have a serious discussion with someone calling you "JDawg."

Bells, you know me well enough at this point. Call me Joe. For the love of Christ, call me Joe.

How about I call you Balerion from now on?

I can call you Joe if you prefer, which would entail my telling you real name and that could result in you calling me "[deleted]" as some of my friends tend to do... It's why I never wear yellow..

I haven't seen this, at least not in the case of his Nazi apologetics or Holocaust denial. Have I overlooked something?

And his bans, as I pointed out, had nothing to do with the things we're talking about. One was for profanity, and the other for "intellectual dishonesty."

Several of his threads were closed down. We don't normally make such things public, but they were closed down.

As for his bans. He was being intellectually dishonest.. That is a part of Holocaust denial..

I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't agree he should be given the opportunity to provide "his proof." James spoke earlier about definitive debates/conversations, and okay, supposing there hasn't been on one this subject here at Sciforums--there have been plenty elsewhere. There is no need to open that can of worms here.

I agree and disagree with you. Deep down, I would prefer if he just went away and not be given the opportunity. But the other part of me wants to take the evidence and ram them down his throat so that he has no reason to ever dare spout that crap here again.

Sometimes I want to drown dishonest people with the truth so that they have no opportunity to tell more lies.

And that person, just like steampunk's response to various evidences presented by you and others, will say that steampunk actually won the debate and he (the new guy) wants to avenge his brethren.

You can't reason with these people.

Those people don't matter.

Do you care if some Nazi supporter says that Steampunk won? I mean really? It's something to laugh at. We have had white supremacists come on this site and try to avenge others and they never got very far. Most either left of their own accord after being laughed at by all and sundry and others were banned for trolling.

But the same could be said (largely) of Holocaust denial. I'm sure there are Jewish members here who don't need to be accused of being in some global conspiracy to defame the wonderful Adolph Hitler. And that's exactly what steampunk is doing. As I said to James, he isn't simply here to talk about it and exchange ideas, he's here to forward his agenda. And I also said to James, this is the only kind of person who makes this argument. In other words, there is no "good" or "honest" Holocaust denier.

If we were to apply the rules in that fashion, then we would find ourselves fielding complaints from theists because they feel atheists were defaming their wonderful God..

He can try to forward his agenda and if that is what he is doing, he won't last long at all. What we can do is to provide him with the truth and what he does with it then is up to him. If he chooses to continue to lie or tries to push his agenda, he will see the door to this place shut firmly in his face.

Then ban him now, because he's already done that. He's already denied scientific evidence and eyewitness testimony. How much more does he need to deny before you see him for what he is?

Have you noticed that he has not returned since his last ban and after evidence provided by GeoffP was placed in front of him? I speak of course when he complained about GeoffP referencing a physical book and I then managed to find the written passage to it and quoted and linked it, which blew his argument out of the water?

You see, that was very annoying to me. As much as GeoffP and I do not get along, I felt that Steampunk's response to his reference was over the line. That it was trying to set a standard on this site that books could no longer be used as a reference.. I found it disgusting and when I saw his response, I actually couldn't respond, because I think I was about to let rip with a spray that could probably have seen me banned. As my colleagues can attest, I vented about it, as did they in the back room. So what I did instead was to find Geoff's reference and found it online and I quoted it. Even though he was banned shortly after, that ban has lifted and he has yet to post in his debate thread. Because Geoff's reference pretty much killed his argument that there was no proof that people were gassed at Auschwitz.

So can we ban him now? Sure. We could take that route. But then we would give him the satisfaction of believing that we would not allow him to have his say, to provide his evidence. I'd rather he tries to provide his evidence and we can then drown him with the truth and fact, much like GeoffP did. I'd rather silence such individuals with the truth than to silence them with a ban and let them believe that they were somehow right and that they were banned because we are part of a conspiracy or that we banned him to silence him.

So my hat is tipped to GeoffP, because he pretty much silenced the twat..

It's already been done.

And he hasn't returned yet..

Telling, isn't it?

No one is saying we should pretend they don't exist. We're saying they shouldn't be allowed to peddle their poison here.

Yes, but then we'd deny GeoffP his moment of glory.

[Balerion]

How about I call you Balerion from now on?

I can call you Joe if you prefer, which would entail my telling you real name and that could result in you calling me "[deleted]" as some of my friends tend to do... It's why I never wear yellow..

Well, [deleted], it's entirely up to you. I'm just glad it's not JDawg anymore, which was a name I chose as a goof, because I thought it would be funny to speak intelligently while rocking a street-hood moniker. But if you look back at those early posts, I was only successful in having a street-hood moniker that everybody laughed at.

Several of his threads were closed down. We don't normally make such things public, but they were closed down.

Then I must retract my previous statement about him not being "positively" moderated. Sorry!

As for his bans. He was being intellectually dishonest.. That is a part of Holocaust denial..

Yeah, but it wasn't the denying of the Holocaust that got him the ban, or at least that's not how I understood it. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I agree and disagree with you. Deep down, I would prefer if he just went away and not be given the opportunity. But the other part of me wants to take the evidence and ram them down his throat so that he has no reason to ever dare spout that crap here again.

Sometimes I want to drown dishonest people with the truth so that they have no opportunity to tell more lies.

If only that worked! Trust me, I'd be right there with you. And sometimes I do feel like dropping truth-bombs on trolls, but I always come away feeling empty afterwards. You try and you try and you try and you get the same trollish response that you would've gotten without all the effort.

Those people don't matter.

Do you care if some Nazi supporter says that Steampunk won? I mean really? It's something to laugh at. We have had white supremacists come on this site and try to avenge others and they never got very far. Most either left of their own accord after being laughed at by all and sundry and others were banned for trolling.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that the effect of holding up a substantive debate of the topic to future trollfaces isn't going to enlighten or deter them. It's just going to be more ammo for their trolling, which is why I can't agree that this is a worthwhile exercise.

If we were to apply the rules in that fashion, then we would find ourselves fielding complaints from theists because they feel atheists were defaming their wonderful God..

I keep hearing this (or something like it), and yet I'm still stunned by it. Okay, if this were ChristianMingle.com (I almost wrote ChristianMinge.com), you'd have a point, but this is Sciforums. We're above that kind of nonsense. We recognize the difference between people upset by Holocaust denial and people upset by the besmirching of their skydaddy.

He can try to forward his agenda and if that is what he is doing, he won't last long at all. What we can do is to provide him with the truth and what he does with it then is up to him. If he chooses to continue to lie or tries to push his agenda, he will see the door to this place shut firmly in his face.

Well, I'm obviously losing this one. I see your point, I just don't agree with it.

Have you noticed that he has not returned since his last ban and after evidence provided by GeoffP was placed in front of him? I speak of course when he complained about GeoffP referencing a physical book and I then managed to find the written passage to it and quoted and linked it, which blew his argument out of the water?

Yeah, but I could also say that it was my chiding him for returning from his previous ban on the hour his ban expired that is causing this delay. Perhaps he's just trying to show that he's got other things to do. Or, and perhaps most likely, he's simply tired of being banned and has gone off to greener pastures? I rather like the sound of that last one, and it supports my argument for banning these fools.

You see, that was very annoying to me. As much as GeoffP and I do not get along, I felt that Steampunk's response to his reference was over the line. That it was trying to set a standard on this site that books could no longer be used as a reference.. I found it disgusting and when I saw his response, I actually couldn't respond, because I think I was about to let rip with a spray that could probably have seen me banned. As my colleagues can attest, I vented about it, as did they in the back room. So what I did instead was to find Geoff's reference and found it online and I quoted it. Even though he was banned shortly after, that ban has lifted and he has yet to post in his debate thread. Because Geoff's reference pretty much killed his argument that there was no proof that people were gassed at Auschwitz.

So can we ban him now? Sure. We could take that route. But then we would give him the satisfaction of believing that we would not allow him to have his say, to provide his evidence. I'd rather he tries to provide his evidence and we can then drown him with the truth and fact, much like GeoffP did. I'd rather silence such individuals with the truth than to silence them with a ban and let them believe that they were somehow right and that they were banned because we are part of a conspiracy or that we banned him to silence him.

To borrow an argument you used earlier in the thread: Do you really care if he thinks he won? Who gives a ship? Let him think whatever he wants. And, frankly, if he really thinks the Holocaust didn't happen and some people died "accidentally" in work camps, then his mind ain't right, and a cold thrashing of him in a formal debate probably wouldn't even register. You see how he's already evaded this debate a few times by making impossible demands that leave him every recourse to say "Well, I'm not getting a fair shake here."

So my hat is tipped to GeoffP, because he pretty much silenced the twat..

Geoff's argument was very well stated, but I do not believe that's why he's not here. He's not here primarily because he was banned. We'll see what happens in time.

[Tiassa]

I probably should feel pleased for writing such an apparently brilliant argument that you began your response to it with the type of insulting deflection our more elusive Religion Forum trolls save for the conclusion of their rambling diatribes.

Face it, you're just still whining because you hate Muslims and think people should be entitled to go out of their way to be insulting toward Islam and its followers.

Am I wrong? Then stop sniveling about Spidergoat. You've been bawling on and on about this for months.

So stop making it about encouraging insults against your favorite target classes of people.

Pretty crass stuff, I admit, though surely a much lesser offense than calling Holocaust survivors "liars" while saying the event itself was little more than a mainstream media invention and preaching the virtues of the Golden Dawn's proposed Third Reich revival and slave state. Yet Spidergoat received a ban for his post, with the reason given as "Bigotry."

Well, think for a moment what you're dealing with.

Our Holocaust denier proved himself something of an idiot.

Poor Spidergoat ought to have known better already.

So should you, but, then, life is what it is.

You don't like it? Too bad.

You want me to rule with an iron fist? Well, it would, I admit, probably be more to your liking ... until it was your turn to be shown the door°.

I fail to see how the same person can argue against censorship of some ideas while at the same time enforcing it against others. Or, better, I fail to see why I should take such a person seriously.

And I refuse to believe you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference.

Get over yourself.

Steampunk wants to drool useless one-liners about Jewish people intended to offend? He'll be treated the same way Spidergoat was.

You want to pretend the two issues are the same? I'll laugh at you.
____________________

Notes:

° until it was your turn to be shown the door — Or, if I started with eradicating the intellectual dishonesty of false equivalence, I could see you out the door in the first cull. And then you could re-register under a new name and watch theists and atheists alike be thrown out the door for being unable to muster any useful arguments. If you kept signing on again and again, you might even be around by the time we got down to banning the mathematicians who use the x multiplication symbol instead of dots or parentheses. And if you were really, really determined, you might actually manage to be lurking around unregistered as the moderators wander from subforum to subforum saying, "Hello? Is there anybody here? Why isn't anyone posting anything? Oh, right, we threw them all out." And then, at least, you could have some fleeting satisfaction.

[MacGyver1968]

I'd like to put my two cents in here...since I am one of the members who wanted the 9/11 debate. (and no one better call me Mitch the Bitch )

What's the point of having a dedicated conspiracies subforum, if conspiracy related threads just get closed instead of being moved to that subforum?

No matter how stupid the conspiracy theory is or how offensive...you can learn new things. Want to show some nut it was impossible that the WTC7 was taken down by explosives?...then you have to go do research on cutting charges, and bingo! you learned something new...you might even learn something new that was completely unrelated to the topic in your search for relevant data...and learning is what Sciforums is all about.

[Balerion]

Face it, you're just still whining because you hate Muslims and think people should be entitled to go out of their way to be insulting toward Islam and its followers.

Am I wrong? Then stop sniveling about Spidergoat. You've been bawling on and on about this for months.

So stop making it about encouraging insults against your favorite target classes of people.



Well, think for a moment what you're dealing with.

Our Holocaust denier proved himself something of an idiot.

Poor Spidergoat ought to have known better already.

So should you, but, then, life is what it is.

You don't like it? Too bad.

You want me to rule with an iron fist? Well, it would, I admit, probably be more to your liking ... until it was your turn to be shown the door°.



And I refuse to believe you're so ignorant that you can't tell the difference.

Get over yourself.

Steampunk wants to drool useless one-liners about Jewish people intended to offend? He'll be treated the same way Spidergoat was.

You want to pretend the two issues are the same? I'll laugh at you.
____________________

Notes:

° until it was your turn to be shown the door — Or, if I started with eradicating the intellectual dishonesty of false equivalence, I could see you out the door in the first cull. And then you could re-register under a new name and watch theists and atheists alike be thrown out the door for being unable to muster any useful arguments. If you kept signing on again and again, you might even be around by the time we got down to banning the mathematicians who use the x multiplication symbol instead of dots or parentheses. And if you were really, really determined, you might actually manage to be lurking around unregistered as the moderators wander from subforum to subforum saying, "Hello? Is there anybody here? Why isn't anyone posting anything? Oh, right, we threw them all out." And then, at least, you could have some fleeting satisfaction.

Flex that bully muscle, T. It really suits you.

[Syzygys]

What's the point of having a dedicated conspiracies subforum, if conspiracy related threads just get closed instead of being moved to that subforum?

I agree. Let's stupidity prosper!!!

[Syzygys]

Man, took forever to find this post. I don't know why you guys moved it, I was generally bitching about moderators deciding what should be discussed, and used the WTC 7 thread as an example only..

It is up to moderators to review every topic that is posted here and to decide whether the topic is a suitable one for sciforums, given its overall ethos, its membership, its history, and so on.

Suitable one. I like that. But anyway, the point again, if there is a need/interest, why not just let them have a discussion? You can still moderate the WAY how they discuss it, but not the FACT that they are debating...

sciforums is not obliged to provide storage space or at platform for every view that any poster wishes to express.

Sure. But it really hurts its bottomline...

Newcomers can usually start a new thread rather than resurrecting one that is 10 years old.

Why is it better? What if the newcomer is referring to something what has been said???

And yet, the Religion forum is a popular forum, judging by the number of posts and views there.

My point exactly. If there is an interest, just let it grow, as long as nobody is getting hurt...

[MacGyver1968]

I agree. Let's stupidity prosper!!!

I agree...stupidity can breed knowledge. Someone may post something completely stupid...but you might learn something new from the debunking of the stupidity. Or just be entertained by the stupidity.

Edit: Take Benny's "lightning collection" thread. The OP was retarded and unfeasible...but there was lots of great discussions about the properties of electricity..specifically high voltage, capacitance, etc. and I came away from that woo woo thread with more knowledge that I started with. Stupidity bred knowledge.

[GeoffP]

Not sure I can take credit for the absence of steampunk. What lurking vampire of SF has ever stayed down with such a stake in him? Then again, he did bugger off semi-sharpish.

[quadraphonics]

Try telling quadphonics that!

Why are you dragging me into this?

And why are you so blatantly misrepresenting my position on the issue in question?

Seems like you didn't have any actual response to the material you quoted there - so why are you using it as an opportunity to stir the pot with me? Seems childish, and hardly the sort of thing somebody speaking in a capacity as a moderator or other authority here ought to be indulging in.

Questioning the holocaust isn't automatically hate speech, though, is it?

Sure, in the same way that questioning the moon landings isn't autmatically quackery.

Have you ever seen a holocaust denier who wasn't an anti-semite? I haven't.

In my opinion, you should need more than just "I don't believe there were gassing at Auschwitz" to be done for hate speech.

Why? You want to waste even more of your time dealing with anti-semites?

I also find it somewhat ironic that Gustav, who usually jumps up and down about free speech, is suddenly all for censorship in this thread.

LOL as usual he's going over your head, this is making you insecure and defensive, and you're both over-reacting to him and missing the mark by a wide margin. It is pretty hilarious how he manages to reliably get you to shoot youself in the foot, just by speaking his mind

[quadraphonics]

I'm just glad it's not JDawg anymore, which was a name I chose as a goof, because I thought it would be funny to speak intelligently while rocking a street-hood moniker.

Oh, so you're one of that type of oblivious racist. I'll keep that in mind.

And you should also be aware that there was no tension between your "street hood" name and your persona here, as the latter is all about bluster and aggression and not so much distinguished by "intelligence."

[Balerion]

LOL as usual he's going over your head, this is making you insecure and defensive, and you're both over-reacting to him and missing the mark by a wide margin. It is pretty hilarious how he manages to reliably get you to shoot youself in the foot, just by speaking his mind

Boy, for someone who just got done complaining about being "dragged into" a debate, you sure didn't waste any time before you started slinging mud. What exactly is "over our heads" about Gustav's comments? What mark are we missing?

And if James and I are still here, and Gustav is banned, then who's really shooting themselves in the foot?

[Balerion]

Oh, so you're one of that type of oblivious racist. I'll keep that in mind.

Excuse you? What exactly was racist about my comment? I wasn't aware that someone needed to be of a certain race to be a hood. I'll have an explanation for your accusation, or I'll have a retraction. Your choice.

And you should also be aware that there was no tension between your "street hood" name and your persona here, as the latter is all about bluster and aggression and not so much distinguished by "intelligence."

Yawn.

If you could comprehend what I wrote, you'd have realized that I was in fact saying that I didn't manage to create a dichotomy between my name and my arguments, and in fact came across very much like someone who would call themselves "JDawg."

Oops!

[quadraphonics]

Excuse you? What exactly was racist about my comment?

Like I said: oblivious.

I wasn't aware that someone needed to be of a certain race to be a hood.

You are apparently oblivious to the racial connotations of the terms "hood," "dawg" and "street hood." Like I said. Try typing them into Google to get an idea.

Meanwhile, someone does need to be of a certain race - and racist mindset - to think that the putative tension between "street hood" and "intelligence" would make for a funny joke, in the first place.

I'll have an explanation for your accusation, or I'll have a retraction. Your choice.

That was a simple description of obvious fact, not an "accusation." This is not up for debate: you showed your oblivious racism, and now you're marked as an oblivious racist. Get used to it.

It is pretty hilarious that you'd try to e-balls your way out of that, though. Like, what exactly are you going to do if I refuse to either explain or retract? Go cry to JamesR? Write me an angry PM? What a joke. I thought you'd at least have learned to avoid that pitfall after the last time I called you on it:

If you could comprehend what I wrote, you'd have realized that I was in fact saying that I didn't manage to create a dichotomy between my name and my arguments, and in fact came across very much like someone who would call themselves "JDawg."

Nah, you didn't write that. You just said the effort failed, without citing any reasons.

You really do think that you can just bluster your way out of any corner, don't you? Between that and the insecurity about your racism, you're starting to look like a real juicy troll target. The best part is that you reliably respond in haste!

Boy, for someone who just got done complaining about being "dragged into" a debate, you sure didn't waste any time before you started slinging mud.

Hey, once I'm in, I'm in. I don't like to do things half way.

Not that there's any tension between complaining about dragging unrelated people into threads and "mudslinging," in the first place.

But, why are you responding to my posts to JamesR? Are you trying to become his bitch, or do you have a crush on me? Or both?

What exactly is "over our heads" about Gustav's comments? What mark are we missing?

Did I say that you were missing anything? Why are you taking my comments to JamesR as being directed at you?

But, to the question: if you have to ask...

And if James and I are still here, and Gustav is banned, then who's really shooting themselves in the foot?

Depends on your conception of what each of the players is trying to achieve. I don't want to rehash tons of history here, so I'll just recommend that you stick around and watch the long-term results if you want to know the answer to that.

[Balerion]

Like I said: oblivious.

You are apparently oblivious to the racial connotations of the terms "hood," "dawg" and "street hood." Like I said. Try typing them into Google to get an idea.

"Hood" is simply a shortening of "Hoodlum," and has no racial connotations. Unless, of course, you happen to think that only black people are "of the street," roll in gangs, and commit crime? What does it say about you that when you see "Street hood" you immediately think of a black person?

I grew up in a low-income neighborhood, and had friends of many colors. JDawg was actually one of my nicknames, as was JBird and JRock. Not anything I wore as a badge, but I was a white kid wearing the names you say have "racial connotations."

I've known hoods of many colors, too. I was jumped by black kids, scammed by a Puerto Rican, and had guns pulled on me by two different white kids--one of whom was a classmate at the Catholic school I attended for a year. Imagine the look on my mother's face when she found out that I had a gun pulled on me at the school she was paying for to keep me out of the dangerous public schools in our area!

Meanwhile, someone does need to be of a certain race - and racist mindset - to think that the putative tension between "street hood" and "intelligence" would make for a funny joke, in the first place.

The joke would have been people assuming things about me because of my name and having those preconceptions dashed. You apparently wouldn't understand that, but I spent a great deal of my life trying to rise above that kind of shit. Know what it feels like to get turned down for a job because of the address you list on the application? I didn't think so.

That was a simple description of obvious fact, not an "accusation." This is not up for debate: you showed your oblivious racism, and now you're marked as an oblivious racist. Get used to it.

You're an angry troll. This is what you do. You're e-flexing because James made you look silly, that's all.

It is pretty hilarious that you'd try to e-balls your way out of that, though. Like, what exactly are you going to do if I refuse to either explain or retract? Go cry to JamesR? Write me an angry PM? What a joke. I thought you'd at least have learned to avoid that pitfall after the last time I called you on it:

Well, I've already reported both of your posts, and I will be contacting moderation directly if you don't plan on retracting your statement. What happens from there, we'll see, but I'm not going to stand for your baseless accusations made because you're on your cyber-period.

Nah, you didn't write that. You just said the effort failed, without citing any reasons.

I would apologize for overestimating your reading comprehension level, but the post was meant for Bells, and I'm sure my meaning was clear to her. I'll be sure to spell everything out in big font next time I address you.

You really do think that you can just bluster your way out of any corner, don't you? Between that and the insecurity about your racism, you're starting to look like a real juicy troll target. The best part is that you reliably respond in haste!

This is nothing but baiting.

Hey, once I'm in, I'm in. I don't like to do things half way.

Well, you clearly don't have anything better to do.

Did I say that you were missing anything? Why are you taking my comments to JamesR as being directed at you?

Perhaps because you said "You both" in the comment?

But, to the question: if you have to ask...

Translation: "I got nothin'!"

Depends on your conception of what each of the players is trying to achieve. I don't want to rehash tons of history here, so I'll just recommend that you stick around and watch the long-term results if you want to know the answer to that.

Translation: "I didn't think it through, but...I got nothin'!"