Fraggle Rocker, slander and inappropriate comments

I think you are seriously deluded. I have changed nothing about my opinions or methods and you have yet to mention this theoretical time point to which you attribute everything. So lets see the evidence to back up your latest two assertions - all prior notifications for evidence having gone unanswered

1. "Since the last time I called you on disingenuity and posted my accusation inline in the thread in question"

Which thread?

2."I see just enough of the old Sam to be certain that you have not reformed"

Whats the latest example of this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Heh Heh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, I just thought the irony was a bit too funny to not point this out, maybe I misunderstand the context.

Well, that was fast

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This should be interesting

Definition:Intellectual dishonesty is the advocacy of a position known to be false.

So what is the false position I am advocating here?

 

That the US and Israel are not the gods of the world, always right and everything they do is morally correct because they are doing it

 

I didn't say anything about you doing that here. If I wanted to I think I could point to examples of heavy bias and inconsistent logic, but I don't see the need here. You said you wanted a recent example of how you haven't changed, and I thought two paragraphs up counts as "recent".

Definition of recent: Of or belonging to a time not long past

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Actually, I can think of two arguments where Fraggle has used his intellectual dishonesty yardstick. I'm not going to bother to link them because I refuse to adhere to special rules that no one else feels compelled to adhere to.

1. Was some argument on atheism - cannot wholly recall what it was but it something to do with Dawkins. Or not.

2. Definition of a Jew.

In both cases, I did not respond to his posts because clearly by making the arguments I had already rejected the status quo.

What I found interesting in that case is that if I define atheist or Jew, it is somehow intellectual dishonesty, even if I quote atheist or Jewish sources. Apparently, the only reliable POV, the only POV with integrity is the one supported by Fraggle Rocker. Who defines theists as morons and retards. So lets say I define all atheists as Morons and all Jews as Retards. Is that acceptable discourse, one with integrity?

 

See? This is called trolling, maybe it should be discussed in the backrooms. Who said S.A.M. is wrong or dishonest in advocating such a position? Let's see a citation.

 

Yikes, so did you ever have to skewer a grad student who missed a deadline or something like that? A lot of pressure to get things done by certain deadlines in science, some profs just go "f*ck it, hurry up and finish whenever", others are like "your future career is dead if you don't finish this by 8am tomorrow".

 

We'll do it live!

Fair enough. I just felt it was a misread of the situation. And, yes, I am also a hot head and irritable, I know.

Hello. My name is Geoff, and I am a rageaholic.

 

got that from Rodney Dangerfield.

 

Yeah, and he stole it from Winston Churchill.

 

hint, hint.

 

I come here mainly to learn and learn I do! This includes SAM as she brings a unique perspective (at times going overboard) but I do respect her opinions and actually follow her as I do you and a few others for what is sure to be a good intellectual debate or just very informative.

I do not know about the moderators bigotry towards SAM but I do know that SAM is more than capable with her intellectual prowess and her debating tactics to go against any of these bigoted big boys. So I have to wonder what is SAM's motives when she cries foul. Is Fraggle really rascist and sexist? :shrug: Fraggle seems to distribute his condescension pretty equally as far as I can tell! Or maybe he is just a little jealous of SAMs intellect?

I have not been here very long, but I too made an observation about SAM early on, and yes it is just my opinion, or as SAM seems to think my ignorance as an American but she consistently hijacks threads w/ propaganda umm like ( I thought you might be interested in this) and then giving links to several sites that betray her radicalism! Then of course the piling on starts by other members who point this out and then the whole damn discussion goes in the shitter.

Am I objective in my perception? I am here as I have said earlier mainly to learn, my ego is not invested in any of these debates or so dependant on my intellectual abilities that I get too easily offended! Hey, maybe I am ignorant!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

IF it quacks........

 

I don't believe that.

I certainly believe that you want to portray yourself as dispassionate (and portray others as emotional). But I don't buy it.

Exactly - SAM is a stoic scientist, motivated by abtract concern, others are tempermental cry-babies.

It has already been made abundantly clear that Fraggle was drawn into a back-room discussion initiated by your self-appointed protectors here.

I'd have to respond that your antics end up becoming the topic of any thread you engage in to much extent.

This explains something significant about your discursive approach, and its tenuous relationship to intellectually honest debate: you try to "win" by provoking an emotional reaction from the other side, while portraying yourself as cool-headed. This is not good-faith engagement. It is somewhere on the continuum between trolling and blogsmanship.

The thing about this line of assertion is that the more you pursue it, the hollower it rings.

You're entitlted to your opinion, of course, and I do not deny being one arrogant sonofabitch. But I've also evinced a clear understanding of the appropriate role of a moderator, the inconsistency of that with regular poster behavior, etc. I have said, repeatedly over the years, that were I a moderator I would not engage in the forum I moderated in any capacity other than as moderator, and recommended that others do the same. Pressure is not something I have a problem with - patience with bullshit, however, is a different matter.

But, my proposal is the mods be elected, not be recommended by the likes of SAM, and I have a certain confidence that your reservations are not widely shared.

I reject the implication that I suffer from a lack of objectivity, or a susceptibility to emotive confusion. Indeed, exactly my refusal to lose sight of the actual argument in the face of your emotional distractions seems to be the feature of myself that most frustrates you.

Or: do you honestly believe that anyone is going to take complaints about topical focus in opposition to emotive prompts seriously, coming from you? Get real.

 

I will go and find the posts that I think hijack original debate topic. Give me a couple days though, as I only have a 2 hours to give in the next few days. But I will do this, because I certainly want to know if I am falsely accusing someone erroneusly.


Most Ignorantly,

The American