Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by adoucette, Mar 18, 2012.
Let's not invoke the "fucked one goat" rule here.
Nope. It's quite one thing to do something OBVIOUS to get someone to quit repeatedly lying within a thread, and then immediately ADMIT that one has done so just for that reason (and it worked by the way) then to lie and repeat that lie, as for instance Tiassa is doing in this very thread, and not take any responsibility for it or apologise for it etc.
As to Occidental's claim, no I'm not inventing my own facts James.
But as I pointed out they do:
Occidental is simply starting counting at the wrong time, the convestation in question is between CaptBork and I and so only the posts between us matter. Of course if Trippy had called me on it I would have admitted it then as well, but my few posts back and forth to Trippy are clearly not part of the converstion that I'm having with CaptBork. (forum threads are like that, multiple conversations going on at the same time)
So yes James, 111 is indeed my next post within the thread TO CaptBork about this issue and immediately after CaptBork complains that I misquoted him.
And is that really the issue here? (See OP)
But let's see how we can put that standard into practice.
Not quite sure what you mean to be honest - my point was simply a matter of semantics Everyone is, by technical definition, a liar, as they have lied at some point or another - why let such petty titles irritate and/or define us?
On Enough Really Being Enough
That can work both ways insofar as there comes a point when moderators stop taking certain members' critiques of the community, administration, and staff seriously. Take the present situation, for instance. Your own personal jihad against fact has bled your credibility to death. Run away, throw stones; run away, throw stones.
And then consider this:
So now we're back to your credibility. That is:
• "I am still waiting for a moderator or any member to cite a single instance in which adoucette lied. He's challenged several persons to do this and no one has yet succeeded. I'm just a simple lad, but that failure suggests something to me." (#54)
• "It is not practical to go through every word, sentence, paragraph and post and say 'No, this doesn't look like a lie to me.'" (#81)
• "I have read the entire thread. I do not see where an assertion of lying is made that stands up. I have not acknowledged that I have not read the claim,. If the claim is in this thread I have read it, but it did not appear to be a valid claim. " (#97)
So let's think about this for a moment:
Post #54, in which you claim to be "waiting for a moderator or any member to cite a single instance in which adoucette lied" comes after a specific case was detailed. Your general claim does not address the detail of why the evidence on record is insufficient. There are two general reasons for this: Perhaps you didn't see it, or maybe you're rejecting it but for some reason don't wish to explain why.
Reminded that your statement was incorrect at the time of its posting, you reiterate your assertion and explain:
"Based on the evidence and argument presented to date no one has demonstrated to me that adoucette has lied. I am perfectly willing to accept he has lied if someone will show me an instance. Perhaps the one you claim to be a lie is such a case, but you'll have to explain that to me in detail, as requested."
It is pointed out that you have not specifically addressed the details already on record. But why would you ask for a reiteration of details on the record? Did you not see them? That's possible; it is also possible that you simply don't want to try to make your case.
In response to the point about details on the record, you ask, "Address what detail?"
And claim, "It is not practical to go through every word, sentence, paragraph and post and say 'No, this doesn't look like a lie to me.'"
And then you demand: "Why can't you just point me to the precise instant which you believe constitues a lie. As it is it is looking more and more as if you will not do so, because there is no such instance."
Now, it is true that the appearance of dissonance appears in your arguments. To the one, "It is not practical to go through every word, sentence, paragraph and post", while, to the other, "it is looking more and more as if you will not [provide the evidence], because there is no such instance".
See, the thing is that if you just didn't see the point on record, we all chuckle about statements intended to be definitive or authoritative that really aren't, and then we move on. If, however, you're playing that stupid game where one insists on disagreeing without attempting to make the argument, well, that's a bit more difficult a conundrum to resolve.
Your explanation for not seeing the issue the first time around is that you need me to point it out to you. Okay, fine. So you didn't see it the first time around. That is what I needed to know. It tells me what I'm dealing with in your inquiry.
But when that explanation is reiterated for your analysis, what do you do? You pitch a fit, demand a retraction, and then stomp off in a huff. ("Tell you what, forget the retraction. Enough really is enough.")
It seems like it would have just been easier for you to address the point at the outset. Indeed, to borrow a phrase, it is looking more and more as if you will not do so.
I would only note, of enough really being enough, that it's fine with me if the solution is to stop giving your critiques of our community and staff any serious consideration. You wouldn't be the first. Either way, that outcome is up to you.
The post refers to an old joke:
"I built a hundred bridges, but do they call me Johnson the bridge-builder? No. I built a hundred schools, but do they call me Johnson the educator? No. I won a hundred wars, but do they call me Johnson the general? No. But fuck one goat..."
Sure, technically, he's a liar. And you are, and I am, and Tiassa is, and James is. But this is an unhelpful distinction: we're talking about on the forum. I realize you're trying to smooth the waters, but there may be a real gripe of substance here. Many of the members appear to think so.
Deleted post: please see my post below. Cheers!
Keith1's Examination of Post #79 (Business & Economics/
"What is wrong in the Western Economies?"
Following the quote of the post are three excerpts from the quote, where I comment on the excerpts. I have included comments by adoucette and BillyT, for comparative analysis.
Keith1 reply to Excerpt 1: This statement is an opinion only. --Capitalism can (and maybe in most instances) allow unfair profit levels for the profit-or (person A, who makes a profit), that cannot be sustained by the profit-ee (person B, who is the source of the profit), unless B can make up the discrepancy in the exchange, by being a profit-or in a separate exchange.
--Capitalism cannot guarantee everyone is a Profit-or, which is an inherent weakness in the system, whether the market is free or otherwise. One might add the frightening conclusion that all capitalism is a "pyramid scheme" of inevitable breakdown and failure over time, without measures that adjust those crippling disparities (hense my K1 strategy posted elsewhere--"Local Public Investment Strategies").
keith1:This finding is not conclusive, as there are extraneous factors created in an atmosphere of national security threats, that would reduce this quote's conclusions to a possible circumstantial coincidence only (not actually verified as fact, and perhaps even intended as fear-mongering).
keith1: This is exterior observational opinion at best.
Apathy, if correctly diagnosed, can be from any number of causes. To suggest a demeaning character of complacency doesn't address the possibility of depression, a feeling of helplessness, escapism or distraction through entertainment venues, heightened level of intellectual pursuit, etc.
The quote was loose conjecture, unfair propaganda, more at revealing the angry, venomous undercurrent issues of the poster, an outright attempt to demonize and demoralize a chosen target group.
keith1: Conclusion--My responses fall in line closer to adoucette's replies as to the erroneous conditions implied by Michael. BillyT seems to be making conclusions led by gut instinct, without producing evidential or even cursory logically-induced findings.
Note: It is clear that some statements made by all posters quoted here can be general observations of the data presented, laced with unnecessary jibes, and tensions, carried over from previous or on-going threads not related to the current location or topic. It is difficult in such circumstances to deduce separation from, the "erroneous statements held as truths", from the intentional statements that are "lies".
One way to easily combat this dilemma is to supply evidence to all statements made, or quotes taken, either in or out of context.
Good morning everyone!
This post is for the attention of admin/mods posting in this thread even after we have supposedly characterised and clarified that most of this flows from misunderstanding and exacerbation of misunderstandings because there is no primary requirement to ask for clarification before accusing/reporting others.
Well? I ask: Why are you admin/mods still posting arguments/accusations here and continuing the sh!tfight based on obvious misunderstandings and personality/style clashes?
Be the grownups here please. Stop joining in the sh!tfight and tit-for-tat stuff. Get back to what you should be doing and set an example for anyone who posts here further accusations and provocations obviously aimed at trolling and inflaming the situation for their own agenda. If the admin/mods make it clear they will delete any further accusations/petty posts that are obviously just prolonging unnecessary repetitions of the background to this misunderstanding, then perhaps there will be an end to the tit-for-tat continuations of this now stale to-and-fro?
I respectfully request the mods/admin bring an end to any further posting here grievance/retaliation unless it is crucial to the mods/admin's deliberations about the general issues raised here.
Can you just now get to making and implementing some consistent and inflexible policy requesting EVERYONE to play nice and be fair and to first ask for clarification (sometimes more than once, depending on complexity/circumstances and possibilities for misunderstandings due to language/experiential differences) as a FIRST RESORT. Then maybe you mods/admin won't keep getting dragged into such time and energy and goodwill wasting situations like these.
Surely you admin/mods (and everyone of genuine character/intent here) would much prefer to spend your time better and more productively for science/society rather than waste time in ways which could be so easily and readily prevented by simple courtesy and consistent policy aimed at forestalling/deleting such futile behaviour/posts which blow up into these situations?
ANYHOW, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Please let there be an end to trailing antagonistic/retaliatory etc posts which can only serve to leave in the forum/observer many lingering doubts as the the efficacy of moderation and of (supposed) polite scientific discourse? I trust that any further inflammatory posts will be eschewed/abhorred by all on 'any side' in this.
Cheers and good luck and good thinking, everyone!
PS: If I may be forgiven this well-intentioned presumption on my part: May I trust that everyone concerned has by now cooled down and 'tacitly' extended (without any prejudice or admissions of blame/liability etc to be implied/inferred) mutual apologies between them and good-naturedly shaken hands 'over the internet' and got on with their lives without residual rancour or grudge? Hope so! Cheers!
I think this thread has probably served its purpose by now. Close?
I don't want to speak for others, but that is also my honest and impartial view at this stage, mate. Cheers!
Whose purpose has it served James?
Your's, Tiassa's and Bells' maybe, not mine or the Forum's.
All you three did was use flaming to avoid the issue.
I post this in SFOG:
And not one comment from any moderator on the actual issue or post in question.
Even though clearly there are others who agree:
JDawg: I'll second that, if it helps
ReadOnly: And I'll third it.
Quadraphonics: A staff that gave half a crap about the quality of discourse in that forum would never have empowered an obvious crank like BillyT in the first place. Or, at the very least, they'd have long since realized that, whatever BillyT's personal amicability, he's long since diminished that forum into a blog for his pet China-Eats-USA fantasies.
So what's the official response from the Mod Squad?
SFOG is a complete waste of time.
Yeah, close it James since you, Tiassa and Bells have made it clear that it is pointless to complain about blatent abuses by any of the moderators, since you are ok with them even in this thread. You've even made it quite clear that Tiassa and Bells can make up lies about me, post them here, and you won't say a word.
Indeed Quad said it best, pages ago:
tiassa may have made a mathmatical error but the most glaring error I see in that post is your logical one.
A productive post at this point would include some site readership decline/increase data:
Showing an overall increase in site visitors for the month (+34% as of 3/26).
The largest decline in interest may be contributed to March 17-18, when reports of moderator abuse became apparent. I want to add that this is not a certain conclusion, as this poster has not observed enough data over time, to make any confident predictions to site trends and readership dynamics.
(Noted too, are large climbs of interest on Feb 27, March 5, and March 13 (the date coinciding nicely with my "3D CMB analysis" thread**).
**--There will be no more data to research on this subject until after December, with the Planck Satellite findings expected to be presented.
Until then , I may add some loose conjectures as to what may be expected, sticking close to the current data as possible--K
Really, and what exactly would that glaring logical error be?
That anyone still cares about this pointless argument, beyond a bit of amusement on a slow night?
well it was actually that he used party affilation as the same as political leanings ignore the fact their are a lot of conservative democrats and some liberal republicans but yeah that works too.
Interestingly, different shades of meaning of lying.
"To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally."
In Romanian is added:
"Although deliberate lies are those that are considered to be more devastating and unforgivable, can identify with and lies spontaneous nepremeditate, possibly caused by lack of information, the correct understanding and / or misuse of the information available or accessible to a time."
There is only one correct answer to the question "Honey, does this dress make my ass look big?" and it has nothing at all to do with the "truth".
Separate names with a comma.