Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Gustav, Aug 18, 2010.
Thank you, for you have proven my point. Albeit vaguely, but still proven.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If that's your attitude, well, fine I suppose. I'd just ask that you actually follow through on it, instead of expending so much energy, page space and audience patience on (by your own estimation pointless) back-and-forth dick-waving. It's a bit hard to take your dismissiveness of these characters seriously when you've made a career out of relentlessly cultivating them as personal enemies.
See again: perverse effects of empowering the lowest common denominator discussed previously.
Yeah, more or less. Such are the benefits of anchoring interactions in a genuine community. Not that friendship and respect alone will cure all ills, but they tend to be a prerequisite for effective moderation (and productive discussion - as opposed to partisan bridge-burning) anyway.
Also, the persons of the pronouns in that quote are wildly off. You're going to have to give some people that you may not like a rest from your abuse, as part of the deal.
It seems that the "it" you're referring to is not the one in the material you quoted - that being a "takes-two-to-tango" type epiphenomenon, which you have yourself instantiated repeatedly and energetically (including right there, in direct response). I'd chuckle at the irony, if the evasion of the point weren't so frustrating.
I see no use in endlessly trading counter-assertions on the question you appear to be speaking to. Indeed, I've tried to make the point that such a premise is a trap irrespective of its underlying accuracy - exactly because it is a self-fullfilling prophecy.
What I will say is that there is a visible incentive for you to get that matter wrong (and for your opponents to make a symmetrical mistake - and that these incentives reinforce one another). Is there a corresponding incentive on my end? And presumably the modship does not generally agree either - they having been exposed to your assertions repeatedly without endorsing them - so what's their game?
Have you considered that you are lacking in a certain self-awareness of how you come off? That perhaps you do not expose enough of yourself to reasonably expect to be properly construed? That, specifically, you present as substantially more combative and insulting than you intend? It seems to me a more plausible explanation for your persistent difficulties than some conspiracy to misconstrue for political ends or whatever. And it is of course par for the course in online interaction, particularly amongst the older set, in the first place.
To that: you've always seemed a confrontation-seeking hardass to me (and not infrequently, a petty one at that). And I do not think I'm alone in that impression. So if that's not the persona you're trying to project, then I suggest you have some serious revision to do. And in the meantime, victim ideation coming from you doesn't really impress. It's actually rather nauseating when coupled with your general aggressiveness.
two fine minds have had their say
good points all around
sci thanks yall
No I didn't. your point only exists in the delusions inside of your head. in reality its non existence. you want your hate condoned and what you consider to be hate(ie facts) to be punished in return.
Excuse me for interrupting, but I don't think that's what he was saying at all.
A matter of interpretation
It's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it? I mean, to the one, there is what JTG says and thinks he means. To the other, there is how PJ interprets it according to JTG's posting history. And, more immediately, we might look at JTG's claim—
"Sandy got banned forever for doing the same things joe does all the time. Why is joe's doing it different than sandy?"
—and either agree or disagree with it. I think it would be an interesting exercise in futility to watch him try to prove his point.
...and i like to give a gazillion thanks to hype for his insight.
ja, thou art awesome
I don't think so. And I think the evidence of the great majority of threads in the relevant sections argues naivety in that approach. Take, for example, the OP postings - these are completely unforced, sui generis.
Yep. Which does not, therefore, obtain in this context.
Pretending to be posting into such a community didn't work for me. Did the opposite of creating rapport, actually. Failed in that respect, pretty much completely, occasionally spectacularly, and for many months. As you, among others, illustrated repeatedly and convincingly. I find more rapport and community now, including an improvement of value in the discussions generally, in the wake of adopting flat confrontation and assertion of the obvious in the face of the rank abuse that is the forum norm (and none of my contribution, btw - your perceptions notwithstanding). It's easier on me, regardless, to have the reality of the situation clearly and simply in evidence.
Apparently you missed, and continue to miss, that aspect of the situation. OK - but henceforward, and as previously asserted by me, I yam what I yam. I'm not able to establish rapport and community unilaterally, by subscribing to an ideal of that ineffectual and victimized (by you, for example) kind, and I see more loss than gain in pretending otherwise.
and thank you again, ice, for thou art indeed.....sci's MVP
Did you receive any warnings for this blatant personal attack?
Again, proves my point far more distinctly this time.
Watch me post in kind, and see my name on the ban list. Which is exactly my whole point. Some people have more freedom to say things than others.
I really don't believe there was anything to interpret, it seemed pretty simple to me and my point was reinforced with dud's response to GeoffP.
As far as Sandy & Joe, again my point proven. You see things the way joe does so he gets a lot more latitude than others. Sandy's banned.
Read posts from both of them and honestly tell me joe is different. Key word: honestly.
Wow ... it's so easy, it must be correct
Is that how it's done? Just say your point is proven?
Man, I've gotta learn that one. Seems much easier than making an effort to demonstrate the point.
....and how about a hearty round of applause for tiassa. sci's new....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To some degree, yes. But pj's blanket description of his intended argument was inaccurate.
The temptation is hanging there isn't it? Nice bit of goading there Tiassa, but the real, honest, objective, fact remains. Some can post things that others cannot.
Just saying my point is proven is based on your ability to actually read and understand the point as well as reviewing the posts being referred to. Or you can choose to rely on your own laziness, which would only consist of scrolling the page up a few inches to review the post I was questioning. Bet you this entire forum that pdud didn't even so much as get an eyebrow lifted for his personal attack?
As for Sandy & joe, oddly enough there is no trace of sandy ever existing on SciForums. Therefore even if I wanted to link examples I couldn't. Furthermore, I prefer context rather than cherry picking a skill popularized by a few posters here.
But even the sandy/joe point is too narrow it was an example. There are other examples that ironically include joe yet again. On this I will post them. But you will be responsible for an honest review.
I will throw you a bone to chew on. Consider that I have been banned for calling the present White House occupant by his full name. Yet, many others since have done the same and they didn't get banned.
This was a clear example of the political bent held by most mods on SciForums. In fact, your very defense of joe on this is another example of how some mods play favorites based not on content of argument, but on ideology. It is rampant here and while it may appear pigheaded of me to say there is nothing you can write that will change my opinion on that. Even that isn't an issue to me, I have come to expect it and I post accordingly.
I get it. Mods favor a political persuasion and that is fine, it is their right to do so. However, when posters are getting banned for doing the exact same thing as those who fall within the mods political persuasion. There is a problem.
Look I can admit that I have posted some bad stuff, but I also know that I have posted neutral stuff that I have gotten banned for and others have done the same thing. Yet, they didn't get banned.
While we are on it, a mod practically admitted that he has bailed a specific poster out repeatedly, and then proceeded to ban that poster for arguing with him. Apparently, that poster just didn't have enough gratitude for the consistent backing he was getting.
A greater point on your begging me to show the prove is that there is no point in doing so, because you are part of the problem. You only see it your way. You have defended the undefendable by posting long tripes filled with inconsistencies and basically anti-American leanings. My thing is that is absolutely fine, but don't warn me or ban me for posting what may seem oppositionally equal with you. (And for the record, I don't think you personally have ever banned me. But others have for exactly what my point is)
In fact, my responding to this post is an example of what I am saying.
You write: "Just say your point is proven?"
Did you actually read what pdud said in response to GeoffP's post? If so, you can honestly sit there and tell me that wasn't a personal attack? And that if I had said the same thing I wouldn't have been banned?
I love how people on this board want to criticize others for being closeminded yet display more of their criticism than the people they are actually criticizing.
And again, thank you pj for proving JT's point.
? no where did I attack you. your ideas and beliefs yes but not you. were I to attack you I would have have called you a raving lunatic but I didn't did I
and he didn't have one. his whining is the same as yours always was that you weren't allowed to get away with breaking the rules or in your case continue too.
bullshit. he is basically crying that the moderation isn't acting according his one personal views.
Actually, his argument is that there's unequal moderation, a view espoused by many on the site.
Separate names with a comma.