Warning for asking a question via PM

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.php?p=2932270&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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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).

 

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?

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.

 

Of course the latter, but I am intrigued now. Maybe someone could post links to Tiassa's effective rebuttals?

Missed it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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?

 

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

 

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.