Open note for Moderators

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Neverfly, Jun 1, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. seagypsy Banned Banned

    QQ, isn't ignoring people what pretty much everyone has advised him to do? You earned my respect with your ability to be diplomatic and logical earlier but now this statement sounds no different than any other childish remark other posters make. So you advise him to ignore people he has conflict with and when he follows that advice you mock him for it, attempting to goad him into a response. You should be ashamed of yourself.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    it is not other people he is ignoring that is the issue it is ignoring himself that is...

    Denial is a common form of self iggy....and when extreme leads to threads such as this one.
    He has a way of resolution but refuses to resolve the issue... he agreed that having a treaty with Bells was all that was really needed. Yet he pursues an agenda beyond resolution... that is why I commented as I have.
    And I apologise if this is distressing for you, as no doubt you are aware it is distressing for all concerned.
    It is distressing for me to see a valued member of this forum in such distress as well which is why I posted originally... it hurts to see what is happening here.. simple

    I ask you sea gypsy,
    should I put Neverfly on iggy as well...?
    I have record of havig major clashes with a number of posters, Balerion included... I do not put them on Iggy because to do so only demonstrates to me I have a problem, not them.
    I have more than enough reason to iggy but choose not to...I prefer to suffer than wrap myself in bubble wrap so to speak.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Perhaps you should. Maybe everyone that thinks he is a nutjob or a cry baby or whatever should put him on ignore. Then perhaps only the people who are in a position to help with this, and should help with this, will be reading and posting. Rather than everyone who thinks they have an answer or who thinks they know Neverfly better than he knows himself. Only he knows what he wants out of this. Maybe his communication isn't perfect, but neither is anyone else's. I see a lot of talking on both sides of the issue and very little listening. Everyone seems to be looking at each other's posts and finding a means of tearing the post apart in order to prove themselves superior to the other. I have only seen Neverfly and JamesR admit to personal imperfection. Granted I have not read EVERY post. Neverfly has admitted to behaving badly. I haven't seen any of the people he has complaint on say anything close to, "Your post offended me, but I could have responded in a more productive manner." There has been a lot of "I know you are but what am I" going around and it doesn't help anyone. So yes by all means put him on ignore or avoid this thread as it seems to be the only one he is posting in. For people who keep asking him to move on, everyone else seems to keep coming back to the thread for more. Is everyone's cable out or something? Is this thread, something so many of you have complained about having to deal with so irresistible that it stalks you across the net and you cannot escape from it?

    If everyone wants him to move on, why not show him how? If you are not getting where you want with Neverfly and this thread, stop visiting it, stop posting in it. stop thinking about it, just move on, go away from this thread and don't look back. Is that really so hard?

    If everyone that wants Neverfly to move on would move on themselves rather than constantly posting remarks at him maybe he and the mods who are talking to him in PM can reach a resolution. But I guess some people get a certain amount of satisfaction from poking a stick at caged animals.
    So you are a psychiatrist now? How do you deduce that ignoring you means he is ignoring himself. You assume you are far more important to him than you are. Pretty arrogant if you ask me. I live with him, if anyone here is qualified to analyze him it's me. And I assure you he is very complex but he never ignores himself. Sometimes I wish he would, but he doesn't, EVER. If he did ignore himself even the slightest it would probably be very easy for him to shrug things off and ignore the frustration he feels but he doesn't. So don't embarrass yourself by trying to play Freud to someone you know so little about. It would do you well to never assume you know any member of this forum so well.

    Well good for you, but it leaves me to ask, if you think putting someone on ignore is so bad, then why advise him to do so? Is contradicting yourself a natural talent or do you have to work at it?

    Also, maybe you prefer to suffer. Well good for you. As a result of your suffering, other member have to also suffer in dredging through the flame wars that happen as a result often finding that the threads are completely derailed and any hope of intelligent discussion of the OP is lost. Nice service you provide there. Perhaps Neverfly's willingness to ignore at this point is a less selfish act considering those who will benefit most from his act of ignoring them will be the people who are able to participate in threads that otherwise would have been destroyed.

    But go ahead and delude yourself that you have the forum's best interests at heart and that you are so much more self aware. At least Neverfly admits to weaknesses and his limits of tolerance and has expressed an amicable means of dealing with those traits. Ignoring Balerion and now you, and anyone else he has severe personality clashes with will allow for peaceful sharing of ideas on the forums. It's a sacrifice on the part of anyone willing to ignore for the sake of the forum.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    you failed to address this bit and after you do so if you choose to, I'll post further
    Also I do not believe in notions you talk of... re: nut jobs.
    All I see are people struggling with what they are experiencing. Some struggle more than others. Me included.
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    The irony of putting anyone on ignore on a forum is that as soon as any other member replies to them- whatever is in the quote shows up in all its glory.
    This is how I see it, too.
    I responded to JamesR and to I responded to Tiassa in P.M.

    Frankly my respect for both of them has grown considering their behavior. They took the criticism and my remarks in stride. And they Offered To Continue. At THAT point, even if they do not do whatever it was I wanted them to do- it won't matter. Because They Showed Listening skill at that point and that's the most important thing to me.

    Since then, I was simply responding to the questions and opinions of Balerion and QQ and one other poster. It's a bit frustrating when they keep posting over and over, "Have you moved on yet? Are you still talking about it?" "what do think of my opinion about your complaint here?"
    Was I supposed to ignore that to avoid them afterward shouting, "Look he's not letting go! He's a maniac!" Sheesh, REALLY?! Did they even read the posts I composed or just count up the number of them and totally guess as to what the content of them were? If you weren't so disruptive, guys, little would have been said, confusion would have been reduced and clarity increased.

    QQ- my turn: It's like you wanted to jump in and "Fix me" by your standard and when I didn't respond how you wanted- You got upset about it. Yes, you may put me on ignore. Feel free. You won't miss anything.
    I will address this bit;
    QQ- this thread is about Tiassa. Color blue to get your attention so you cannot claim later that you're unclear about what is actually the topic.
    It is about one, rather small, but I think important issue- a disagreement of terms between Tiassa and I. Tiassa has agreed to discuss it privately and I agreed with him to do so and it is in progress. He's been, so far, professional and courteous about it and I have no complaints.
    I am just as guilty of derailing the thread by discussing other grievances in it. I apologize for this behavior- I showed a lack of self control.

    I am not pursuing an agenda beyond resolution. I was replying to your questions and comments and to Balerions. Yes, they were off topic. Had I known you were going to use that against me as far fetched evidence of a conspiracy to pursue far more than I had stated- I'd have ignored you already. I had no idea you were going to jump off the rails like that.

    So for the record: Any post from you or Balerion or anyone else that is about any other grumble or any other member than Myself or Tiassa will be ignored by me.
  9. seagypsy Banned Banned

    My post was not directed only at you. If anything I said does not apply to you then disregard it. You may have noticed that I said things such as, "to anyone who wants ....". That is indication that the post is not directed exclusively to any one person. It is directed at anyone to whom statements apply. Some people have called him a nut job in this thread, and i am sure some have thought it quietly to themselves.

    I didn't address the statement you made above because, first of all, I wasn't sure what you meant and frankly at this point I don't care, plus I suspected it would require me to speak Neverfly's mind in order to address it. I may be married to him but that does not give me the liberty to speak his mind. I can only speak my own. Just as he cannot speak my mind.

    It seems he addressed your question above so there is no need for me to give any further attention to it. I will also do the best service I can for the forum by ignoring any further remarks by you in this thread. I have already been ignoring, or at least not responding to Balerion. I will keep my word to Bells and not comment on the specifics of the actual issue at hand.
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Maybe putting me into perspective might help you understand where I am coming from.

    You ask if I was a psychiatrist?
    My immediate intuitive response was to ask in return, what if I was?
    I am not a psychiatrist [thankfully] however,
    I have had considerable experience and research into this field for over 20 years before and since my youngest brother hung himself in 1997 as a reaction and protest to the closed shop mentality of that profession called psychiatry. [mental health]
    After taking care of him 24/7 for over 2.5 years being his so called "Power of attorney" and having worked in advocacy since on behalf of in-patients at a major psychiatric hospital here in Melbourne, and after countless interviews and being aparty of various "official research projects", I do have a little bit to offer if and when I see a group of adults tear each other apart for seemingly trivial reasons.
    Mental health and understanding it's genesis is my greatest passion as I promised my deceased brother in 1997 that I will do what it takes to find some answers to his terribly ignored and shockingly de-valued questions.
  11. Neverfly Banned Banned

    I'm sorry about your brother. That's close and very tragic. That said, while research carries weight, don't allow that to let you think you're a qualified psychologist. You admit you are not. You have misunderstood the premise of this thread and I'm at fault for a great deal of that as earlier stated, by ranting and also by responding to posts about other grievances.
    Are the reasons trivial? Probably, yes. But it's not about the reasons, it's about the willingness to discuss.
    I have no idea how many posts it's been- it's spawned two threads and many PM's and JamesR still doesn't know what the issue was- I PM'ed him. Answered Kittamaru- Tiassa knows- All of this could have easily been avoided.
    All the public discussion could have been avoided. I think the underlying issue is one of stubbornness and principle.
    Since you clearly do not know, as well, what the thread is about, all your research means little to it.
    Nor does it justify your many assumptions.
    Since you claimed that I'm doing something I'm not- I'll ask you to stay out of this now. I appreciate the intentions you may have had. Some of it made a lot of sense. We're past that part now and the part this thread is at is simply waiting for the Conclusion.

    Oh and I think somewhere above someone said something about this being the only thread I'm posting in. Actually, I've posted in two others about entirely different issues.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

  13. seagypsy Banned Banned

    That was me. Apparently I am slacking in my job of keeping tabs on your every move.:shy: Sorry about that, lol. I will try to do better. Since I haven't walked in on you while you were posting in any other thread I made the erroneous assumption that this was the only one you were actively dealing with. My bad.
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    See? SEE? You never pay attention to me!
  15. Neverfly Banned Banned

    It has been 16 days- over two weeks since Tiassa replied to my P.M.

    Yet, Tiassa has posted in threads during that time. I understand being busy- I have been quite busy, myself. But if one has time to read threads and post replies, start threads and create polls-- he has time to do what he said he would do. As a courteous person would do.

    To those of you complaining about how I seem impatient or "wouldn't accept an olive branch" - this is why. He has sat on the issue, waiting for it to blow over for 16 days, now. Over "a couple of weeks" that was mentioned earlier... Which is what he did, before.

    This is why I had started this thread. It's why I got JamesR involved- for all that that action accomplished...

    Tiassa- How about you take a break from posting commentary long enough to do what you said you would do? I think you've hung me out to dry long enough. AGAIN.
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The obvious point

    Do you really want me to decide what is troubling you?

    The answer to the question you asked me fourteen days ago is yes, actually, you need to start by explaining what the problem is.

    If you want me to decide what is troubling you, well, I'll pretty much give you the same answer I gave you back in May when you started this thread, and that is that if you make racist statements, you don't get to complain when people wonder about racism.

    If you could have come up with a better explanation of what your statement meant, one that was comprehensible and not desperately angry, we probably could have been done with this months ago.

    But, yes, as far as I know, you're still pissed off because you don't get to say racist things and complain when people wonder about racism.

    So, as it stands, my public offer remains in effect: Get on with life, and so will we.

    This isn't hard to figure out: If you keep whining at the moderators about how bad a job they're doing simply because you don't like being called out for having made a racist argument, we will eventually notice.

    As to the rest—for instance, a private message discussion of the issues—do you really want me to decide what is troubling you?
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    I explained to you clearly- what was troubling me. At no time was it left to you to decide what was troubling me.

    I did. Quite Clearly. I will go ahead and paste it below.

    Wrong- I did not make the racist comment you claim- nor are people wondering about racism- You labeled me as one in a Mod Post. It should be Removed.
    Doesn't work that way- You are flat out wrong and I'm not going to back down to make things easier for you. I am confronting you for what you are wrong about. Your "public offer" is for me to "F-off" - Sorry if I'm not accepting that.
    The rest of your post is a dishonest portrayal of the issue.
    Nor does your dishonesty excuse that you ignored the issue repeatedly.
    Does that look like I left it to you to decide what was bothering me? I think not.
    My explanation is perfectly fine. The only thing screwy here, is your inability to understand that your misconceptions are not my problem. You don't get to continue to label me as a racist over such an absurd and ridiculously translated (by you) statement. If there is room for doubt- you don't get to make it as a claim. You can believe it in your own mind- you don't get to stick the label on a Moderator Post and then refuse to correct your error out of some politically correct stubbornness.

    I referred to a black kid as a black kid and repeatedly accusing me of making a racist remark over it is frankly- bullshit. You're spinning like a top trying to justify having done so. Jeez, remember that long drawn out PM you sent me in which you found every which way to tie in some weird explanation of how it could be taken poorly and it still didn't make any sense?

    The only thing you did was try to justify your complete and absurd misinterpretation of a very simple statement. You don't get to slather your misinterpretations on other people, or stubbornly refuse to accept your error after you slander people.
    Get over yourself, Tiassa. Remove it from the Mod post.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    But you did not just label the black kid as the black kid, did you?

    In discussing whether any teenager should stop and speak to or answer the questions of a complete stranger following him in a car and then on foot on a dark evening, this is what you said, and this was the statement that caused pages and pages of everyone trying to determine what the hell you were on about to make such a statement:

    Now, for everyone who were unfortunate enough to have to put up with you in that thread, where you were under the misapprehension that Zimmerman was in a marked car and/or a uniform when he was on patrol, when it had been clearly established that he was not, a fact you repeatedly dismissed and ignored, you pretty much came out and said that it was logical for "a black kid" to stop and speak to a complete stranger who had taken to following him in his car and then chased him on foot.. While we all queried why you would expect a "black kid" to do something no one would expect anyone to do and we commented on the racism of that statement, you went on a rampage and then became offended because everyone else found it racist that you expected and thought it logical for the "black kid" to do something no child should ever do - ie.. stop and speak to a stranger following them in their car on a dark night and then taken to chasing them on foot when said kid correctly ran away from the stranger following him.

    Do you understand now?

    Tiassa's mod note, was after pages and pages of you defending why it was logical for a black kid to stop and talk to a complete stranger who was following him, as Zimmerman was following Martin that night.

    So no, Tiassa's mod note was not wrong to label it as racist. Your wording and how you debated in that thread and how you demanded that the "black kid" act outside the rule because of his apparent colour making it logical for him to speak to strangers following him, and then casting doubt and aspersions as to why he was even out that night buying snacks (because apparently, black kids shouldn't be out at night buying snacks) and your avid support of Zimmerman's actions and blatant racist profiling and racist attitudes... we all thought you were being racist.

    And then of course, you brought my colour into it and asked me if I was touchy about this particular thread because I was black. Because that didn't appear racist at all, after everything else you had said in that thread, hmmm?

    Neverfly, if you don't want to be taken as being racist, you do need to watch what you post. When you apply a standard to a black kid that you would never apply to any other child, that is racist. As Tiassa pointed out in that Mod Note, you didn't even have to bring up Martin's colour. But you did and then you said it was logical for the black kid to do something that no child should ever do (speak to a stranger following them in his car at night).. but for you, even hypothetically, you felt this was somehow acceptable for the black kid to do. And then on top of that, you came out with that comment about how I was of course touchy about this because I am black and the victim is black. That is how you debated things in that thread. Why you think that is somehow acceptable and that you weren't wrong is beyond me.
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Fade to Black

    Ah. Thank you. I apologize; I was referring to your original note, in which you ranted about Balerion (JDawg) and asked, "So, am I waiting on you to initiate that? Am I supposed to open the dialogue? What's Goin' On?"

    In reviewing the private messages, I must confess that I somehow missed the later note.

    Very well.

    I see. So when asked why you included the adjective black, your explanation that you used the word black because he was black was supposed to make sense?

    Bells makes the point reasonably enough in this thread:

    "As Tiassa pointed out in that Mod Note, you didn't even have to bring up Martin's colour. But you did and then you said it was logical for the black kid to do something that no child should ever do (speak to a stranger following them in his car at night).. but for you, even hypothetically, you felt this was somehow acceptable for the black kid to do."​

    She also made the point reasonably enough back in May:

    "Tell me something. If your kids are walking home and this stranger starts to stalk them in his car. Would you advise your children to approach the stranger and answer his questions? Or would you advise your children to run?"​

    Or, as I said at the time:

    Even if we go with kid, it seems a little strange to expect a seventeen year-old to not be suspicious at the notion of someone first following him slowly in a car, and then chasing him on foot.

    "Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way."​

    Not only is this a strange suggestion for anyone who has been followed suspiciously by a car, and then chased on foot, what is the difference between being black, a kid, or a black kid and anyone else? ....

    .... If people want to have a discussion about how one should respond to being followed by a stranger in a car, and then chased on foot by that stranger, and the different obligations of how that one should respond to the pursuing other according to skin color, age, &c., they can start another thread. To the other, I can understand why some might not be anxious to undertake that discussion, as it involves the idea that parents should teach their kids, "If a strange adult ever follows you in a car and then chases you down on foot, you owe it to him to cooperate." And it involves the proposition that black people owe greater deference to such pursuing strangers than people of lighter skin tones. And, of course, since this particular issue originates in the United States, as this situation has it, we eventually will run into considerations of Equal Protection and whether or not people with darker skin are obliged to greater deference to their neighbors.​

    But, thank you. In the end, I just wanted to make sure that this was still about you proposing that the black kid should be obliged to behave in a counterintuitive manner that increases his risk when being chased down by a belligerent stranger.

    I think where you lost sympathy in this issue was from the outset; yes, people were suspicious of Zimmerman because it was already known that he and his surrogates were telling contradictory stories—not only did they disagree with each other, but they also disagreed with what factual record was available to us.

    Like when it was claimed that Zimmerman merely got out of his truck to read a street sign, and then was viciously attacked. Well, we knew before that tale was even told that it was false. There's a reason why people were suspicious of Zimmerman.

    What was the reason to be suspicious of Trayvon Martin?

    That he fled from someone who was following him suspiciously in a vehicle?

    That we found out after the fact that the kid had smoked pot at some point in his recent life?

    "I'd like to believe that the kid was not buying weed or casing a house... rather, he was just a kid that was in a bad spot at a bad time. But I cannot dismiss his Violence and suspicious behavior."​

    Yeah, we cannot dismiss the suspicious behavior of fleeing from a stranger who was stalking him.

    And we certainly cannot dismiss his violence in confronting a stranger who first followed him in a car and then chased him on foot.

    Your logic never made sense, and while we can certainly accept that part of this was simply your ignorance of the facts, you pretty much pissed away any chance of winning back the sympathy you lost at the outset.

    Like the post about your effort to give Martin the benefit of the doubt: "Which is why his behavior later is suspicious."

    Or the bit about Bells being black?

    You do realize that the situation opened at #409, and I didn't intervene as a moderator until #548? That went on for four days, and at no time did you really do much to help yourself.

    Indeed, it took you three and a half months to go from, "That Trayvon Martin was referred to as black is because he is....BLACK", to, "I specified Martin as a black kid to avoid being accused of not recognizing that he was black when the racial tensions of the case were so high".

    The reason I wanted you to drop it and move on with life is that in this particular issue you have absolutely no credibility. You're only digging yourself a deeper hole going on about it.

    Seriously, think of it this way: Balerion and I, for instance, are presently having a row about racism. Neither of us seems to have much of an appreciation for the way the other views history in relation to the subject. But that doesn't stop us from discussing other things without beating each other over the head about bigotry. The question of bigotry comes up when that happens to be the subject. But, what, when the subject is Libyans standing for our fallen ambassador, we aren't going to thrash each other over our disagreement about propositions of racism in domestic politics. Or Madanthonywayne, with whom I also have occasional disagreements about bigotry. The only time it's really worth dredging those up is when that's the subject; there is plenty of other criticism we might offer one another.

    And it does come up from time to time. But the longer tale allows people to move on, and build other records of their outlooks. Without repetition of the appearance of racism, past issues of the appearance of racism fade.

    So, yeah. Welcome back to the community. We would much rather be glad you returned. But if you really, really want us to focus on the "black kid" line, well ... in the first place, you're simply not going to win out on that one, given the record you left in the Zimmerman thread; and, to the second, the more you want us to focus on that episode, the slower it will fade.
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    You're claiming I lost sympathy and credibility- this is nonsense for two reasons. I'm not looking for nor asking for sympathy. I'm looking for clear understanding and there is a stark difference between the two.

    Bells; Your post covers that poor wording on my part may have led to a misunderstanding- I clarified this when you asked about it right after-I also apologized. This is part of credibility. You accepted that clarification and we moved on with the debate. You keep forgetting that part now. Let's not debate the Zimmerman thread again here. I'll ask, as a courtesy, that you please let this topic stay between Tiassa and I. I understand your point of view- I understand your feelings on the matter and I want understanding more than debate.

    Tiassa, whether or not the wording was poor is irrelevant. I did not lose credibility in regards to this topic. If you can claim I was ignorant or misinformed of the Zimmerman case then you can say I lost credibility on my stance on that case. You cannot just say I have no credibility whatsoever- especially where my personal views are concerned.
    What I said was not a racist comment. I referred to the kid for what he was. It was an accurate and honest description and was made as such to deter the racial tensions that shouldn't be as high in this case as they are in any event.
    Misinterpreting it is not an excuse to make a judgment on it and my intent is to hold you accountable to that so that you, too, can see where lines get drawn. I have no desire for it to fade away- My mind doesn't work that way. I want it confronted out in the open. If I'm shown to be wrong, I won't hide from that or hope no one sees it. I will accept being wrong. Everyone is allowed to see. So far, you haven't shown an error on my part- only one on yours.
    Think of it this way- if someone were to make a remark that is highly offensive, such as a severe misconception about homosexuals or jewish people; their misconceptions are not your problem, right? You will tell them where they are wrong freely. This is what I'm doing with you now- you have made a comment to me based on a misinterpretation or misconception and I'm trying to show you the error and you are refusing to listen- you are trying to justify it, instead, with irrelevant bits. It's the entire problem with the Zimmerman case, if someone were to question the kid at all, he's judged to be racist for very absurd reasons- Had the kid been white and people questioned his actions, no one would claim racism. There's no need for it. I'm standing up against politics for the sake of brutal honesty.

    In that thread, I learned a lot of things I did not know before. That's WHY we take part in forums, to learn and increase understanding. But it's not exclusive to just me, but all of you can do the same.

    I stood up then and am doing so now, not just because I dislike a label I did not earn, but also because you have repeatedly refused to listen to anyone but yourself. Allow yourself to realize other minds do not work the way yours does.
    This is not accurate. I'm pretty sure I clarified this in my FIRST PM to you - the reason never changed- it took three and half months to get you to LISTEN. You're just as accountable to the time it's taken, here...
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Brick by Brick

    Okay, so "first PM" ....

    I'm setting aside two messages from September, 2010, as they pertain to issues that precede the existence of the Zimmerman question.

    Dates reflect Pacific Time (US), GMT-8.

    May 22, 2012

    The first message I have from you regarding the Zimmerman debacle is May 22. This argues your victimhood by acknowledging your ignorance of the facts involved in the issue, and includes the assertion that, "The context of this makes it clear that I was saying any kid, walking home when questioned by authority should logically answer questions, rather than run."

    No, it doesn't. There are two problems that stand out:

    • The context of ... what? The context of this ignorance? Okay, we can work with that.

    • But the context makes it clear that by "black kid", you meant "any kid"? That's a bit more problematic.​

    After reiterating your mistakes about faulty assumptions of Zimmerman's status, you argued, "These two key bits clarify what I had stated quite easily and the vast majority of members can see it clearly." And that statement is grossly inaccurate.

    The rest of the message is simply you complaining about how people viewed your argument in the thread.

    May 31, 2012 (1)

    Not much as far as interpretation or argument of the underlying issue; this message declares your intent to confront me, notes your communications with James R and Bells, and comes an hour and a half before you opened this thread.

    May 31, 2012 (2)

    In this, you draw a distinction between black ink (me as a posting member) and green (me as a moderator). You suggest that I only should have used green ink in response to your implication that Bells is racist.

    You also declare that, "referring to a black kid as a black kid is not racist nor can it be construed as such without seriously misrepresenting what was said". We will come back to this point.

    This message also attempts an analogy, that I should replace "black" with "gay", and imagine if I had said something like you did about a gay person.

    You insist that your words are taken out of context, and reflect on your view of green ink.

    May 31, 2012 (3)

    Responding to the question of what you meant by "black", you simply assert, "It means he is Black, Tiassa." This argument is also included in your initial public response to the Mod Hat, which, along with another member's criticism of that response, was deleted for defying direct instruction to stop the thread digression and take it up with me via private message.

    You accuse cherry-picking, and accuse that I do not care what the facts are.

    Then you attempt to clarify by reiterating the facts you had wrong, and then note, "Additionally, that I said he was BLACK IS BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. What part of that do you flat out refuse to understand?"

    In the next paragraph, you reiterate your point about why you included the adjective black: "But he is black and that was how he was identified. There is no problem here except for your rather long and tiresome rationalizations and justifications."

    Then you lied to me. I had pointed to the May 22 private message and asserted that it omits the "black" issue altogether. You responded that, "It does not omit the issue at all. It clarifies the actuality which you demonstrate a complete refusal to acknowledge or accept."

    Why is this a lie? Because the only reference you make to the mere idea of the "black kid" remark is to assert that, "The context of this [ignorance of facts] makes it clear that I was saying any kid, walking home when questioned by authority should logically answer questions, rather than run."

    Black kid? Any kid? You didn't even try the, "I said black because he was black", bit.

    When you wish to tell us we're wrong, and feel the need to lie in order to do so, what, really, do you think you're going to accomplish?

    You reassert that we misunderstood you because we "refuse to examine the facts".

    And then ... well, it's kind of weird. When you asked how I would feel if I made such an error about the word "gay" and people accused me of being homophobic, I replied, "Had I made that error, I would have been much more proactive in correcting it."

    Your response to that is that you did make a proactive effort by complaining to the moderators.

    That's strange to me, given your in-thread defense over the course of four days and however many posts.

    Seriously, had I made that kind of an error, I could have corrected it in one public post.

    I had also asked you if what bothers you is that you are racist, or that people might think you're racist. The response was indignant: "How dare you?"

    Next comes three paragraphs complaining that your comments were taken "totally out of context", that I am "IGNORING" what I "claimed [you] omitted in the first private message (see above, about lying), and asked how I can effectively moderate if I "IGNORE evidence".

    The rest of that message is simply denunciation of my attitude, part of which requires some contextual manipulation since the part of our exchange that leads to those denunciations includes an unanswered question about why you ignored defining context in order to build the complaint.

    What was it you were saying? Something about ignoring evidence?

    May 31, 2012 (4)

    Nothing to see here; just the resolution of a question about sharing the contents of my private messages with other moderators.

    June 2, 2012

    The first paragraph might make sense to you, but it certainly didn't to me, though it does reiterate that you think I'm ignoring evidence. You revisit the private message that you based May 31 (3) on, and manipulate a quote.

    Let us take a look at the quote you presented:

    And as your defense in-thread continued, you didn't really help yourself:

    "IF I don't jump on the bandwagon and support a black guy that BEAT UP some guy until the guy defended himself, I must hate blacks?"​

    But Martin was black, so he was beating up some guy until the guy defended himself.


    (I should note that I have altered your quotation slightly, including the closing indent tag that you omitted so as not to screw up the formatting of this post. To the other, including the closing tag in your manipulation would not have hidden your misrepresentation.)

    And the original; see if you can spot the manipulation:

    And as your defense in-thread continued, you didn't really help yourself:

    "IF I don't jump on the bandwagon and support a black guy that BEAT UP some guy until the guy defended himself, I must hate blacks?"


    I mean, at that point, anyone actually paying attention to the case would have known that Zimmerman was chasing Martin on foot.

    But Martin was black, so he was beating up some guy until the guy defended himself.


    It would appear that you're still trying to pin it on the "black kid", trying to willfully omit a valid issue, in order to make your case.

    Ironically, in responding to the quote that you manipulated, you accuse: "Yet you took that and changed the meaning. And let's be blunt--- it takes a bit of work to change that meaning into what you claimed." (Boldface in original.)

    You also remind me of your effort to be discrete ... three days into your public complaint.

    You advise that I should share your message with the moderators, and then complain about the effort I am "putting into making it appear I presented a case that I did not present"—which is itself ironic given your ham-handed attempt to manipulate a quote.

    June 8, 2012

    Not much to see here; just a clarification of something you posted in response to Billvon, and reiterating that you are done with Sciforums.

    September 7, 2012

    First private message to me about this issue after your return, a response to the Open Note posted in this thread.

    Four paragraphs: three concerning your suspicion—gut feeling, call it what you will—that a certain member might be "some kind of Mod puppet". The fourth wonders what comes next in the dialogue.

    September 8, 2012

    This message brings us nearly to the present, or, at least, to the current point of contention. That is, this is the message in which you argued, "I specified Martin as a black kid to avoid being accused of not recognizing that he was black when the racial tensions of the case were so high. Talk about a backfire... I clarified to her that I referred to him as a black kid only because he IS black and that any child of any race would be expected to behave such and such way."

    And no, you did not clarify this in the first private message to me about this issue. The nearly hilarious assertion that you "specified Martin as a black kid to avoid being accused of not recognizing that he was black when the racial tensions of the case were so high" is new.

    It took you three and a half months to go from noting Martin's blackness "because he is black" to doing so as a noble gesture in recognition of high racial tensions.

    September 20, 2012

    Nothing to see here, just a reminder that you were still waiting for my response.

    Back to the Present

    Which brings us back to your latest post:

    A difference of context, it seems. I'm referring to sympathy in terms of cause, such as "Democratic sympathizer"—i.e., a leftist who votes for Democrats—while you appear to be viewing it in terms of sympathy as pity, or something like that.

    Well, I suppose that is a matter of interpretation. To illustrate, I will point to Mitt Romney:

    • Romney is widely recognized as having absolutely blown the 9/11 foreign service attacks issue out his ass. He made two major mistakes. The first was of principle, insofar as he chose to mount a political attack against the foreign service while it was still under lethal attack abroad. That's a pretty ugly breach of American political etiquette.

    But the other big mistake was factual. He—accidentally, we are told—mischaracterized the basis of his attack, placing it wrongly in the chronology.

    Now, this is one of the big dangers of rapid response to fast-evolving issues and situations. Sometimes you just get the information wrong.​

    The problem with your credibility in-thread is that you were apparently ignorant of facts that were long on the record. See above, the discussion of your poor attempt at quote manipulation.

    So here's the deal: Yes, Mitt Romney opened his mouth before he knew what was going on in a chaotic, fog-of-war moment. You, on the other hand, as I noted way back then, were apparently ignorant of or apathetic toward a well-established fact. That is, as I noted, "at that point, anyone actually paying attention to the case would have known that Zimmerman was chasing Martin on foot".

    Yet you omitted that point in-thread when you wrote, "IF I don't jump on the bandwagon and support a black guy that BEAT UP some guy until the guy defended himself, I must hate blacks?"

    Despite the facts on record, you insisted on making the "black kid" the aggressor. That really didn't help your credibility at all.

    You claimed ignorance in your defense. Repeatedly. And, you know, I know people whose personal views are that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. We recently encountered, on a national scale, some people who think that women's bodies have some sort of anti-rape antibodies that will prevent pregnancy in cases of "legitimate" rape. If supporting your personal view requires reliance on ignorance and willful manipulation, your personal view has no credibility outside your person.

    Why shouldn't they be? A guy with a fixation on black people as suspicious calls the cops, defies the 911 operator's instructions, and chases the kid?

    Yeah, Zimmerman's belligerence is actually important in considering the assertion that "a black guy that BEAT UP some guy until the guy defended himself".

    You're quite clear that you're trying to convince us that what you said was not a racist comment. The problem is that you're also working against the rest of your own record in this issue.

    Yeah, a guy who mischaracterizes an incident in order to complain that he feels like people are bullying him into jumping on a bandwagon just isn't convincing when he whines that everyone is misinterpreting him.

    Well, you know, the funny thing is that when you returned to Sciforums and this thread, some members of the staff had already forgotten about the "black kid" incident. In other words, you could have just gone on with life, and most people would have forgotten about it. But you've asked the community to revisit that episode, which not only reminds them, but adds a fresh coat of paint, making it that much harder to weather away over time.

    You've been shown to be wrong; hell, you even claimed ignorance in your own defense. You've been shown to be dishonest in this dispute. Yet here you are, still pushing the case.

    So what about trying to explain the situation to me moves you to dishonesty?

    Well, it's much like the problem you demonstrated in the post that set this whole controversy in motion: By May 18, people had plenty of reasons to question Zimmerman. You were either ignorant of the facts or willfully apathetic toward them when you tried to make a blank-slate comparison.

    Furthermore, you also overlook that Martin's behavior was implicitly questioned when Zimmerman wasn't arrested.

    A black male wearing a hooded sweatshirt walking at night. That, in the opinion of those who declined the police recommendation to arrest Zimmerman was enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.

    Under what circumstances is following someone in a car, then chasing them on foot not considered hostile? Well, if you're a black male wearing a hooded sweatshirt while walking at night.

    "Since it's not established," you wrote, "I've been giving Martin the same benefit of the doubt I've been giving Zimmerman-- Innocent unless demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty."

    Tabula rasa. In doing so, you ignored the problems with Zimmerman's account in order to either augment his credibility or diminish Martin's.

    When you have to start butchering relevant details in order to assert, "if someone were to question the kid at all, he's judged to be racist", yeah, people who are actually paying attention to the details might notice. Perhaps that seems unfair in your opinion, but that's also how it goes.

    I'm just curious, then, if you've learned anything about the dangers of making dishonest arguments?

    I stood up then and am doing so now, not just because I dislike a label I did not earn, but also because you have repeatedly refused to listen to anyone but yourself. Allow yourself to realize other minds do not work the way yours does.

    It's not a question of the diversity of minds. Rather, it's a question of how you've gone about expressing yourself.

    I would also note a personal sense of irony here: I'm a political leftist, and people in my part of the spectrum are often accused of allowing diversity to trump reality. We aren't quick enough to denounce angry black men like Jeremiah Wright. We aren't quick enough to denounce angry Muslims in Palestine. We aren't quick enough to denounce angry indigenous Americans. We side with minorities too much. And so on.

    So, yes, the idea of you trying to remind me of diversity has a certain irony to it. After all, diversity includes my neighbors whose personal views include UN-black helicopter conspiracy theories, the Kenyan-anti-colonial-secret-Muslim-Nazi-Communist-Jew-Socialist named Barack Hussein Obama, the magic rape ninjas that prevent pregnancy when a woman is "legitimately" raped, and so on.

    Diversity is one thing. Factual considerations are another. I recognize diverse opinions, but that doesn't mean that every opinion is right.

    Consider the mistake I made Friday: "Do you really want me to decide what is troubling you?"

    You had a factually correct counterpoint. Thus, I apologized and explained how I made the error.

    With the whole "black kid" bit, you simply—in contemporary parlance—doubled down and pushed ahead. And in doing so, you were caught ignoring established facts and manipulating quotes in order to make your point.

    It's true that not all minds work like mine. But that diversity does not automatically mean those minds are automatically correct in matters of fact and history.

    And in this particular case, you blew your credibility months ago.
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    No, I didn't- all that yakking is you covering your ass and dishonestly misinterpreting (in other words, trying to read between the lines and tell me what I meant instead of what I know I meant. You deliberately misinterpreting what I had said in order to continue to justify your misconceptions.

    It's Pathetic. You tell me I lost credibility while you do everything you can to keep egg off your face. You're dishonest about it- and you're the one manipulating intent and wording yet you accuse me of doing so.

    What I see here is that You have No Intention of admitting to being wrong but instead, will lie about what I said, what I meant and what my intent was in order to call me a liar.
    You act like I'm the one stubbornly refusing to examine things while it is you that is stubbornly refusing to examine things.

    I have NOT been shown to be dishonest in this dispute at all. You only have demonstrated your OWN manipulations. Do you honestly believe that running in circles around saying a black kid is black is a racial slur, somehow? You cannot justify it- no matter how hard you try-BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SAY WHAT MY INTENTIONS ARE. It really is that simple. You quotemined to make a false appearance- good for you. It's still dishonest.

    You list your misunderstandings of what I said as my dishonesty- Bullshit.
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Right after I asked about it?

    You defended it for well over a dozen posts and it was about 2 days later (and several pages later) that you apologised but blamed me for your discounting my argument because of my colour.. You know, because I am apparently black, I would of course be touchy about Martin's shooting because Martin was black.

    So do not lie that it was right after or your poor wording and that you clarified the issue. You never did. You apologised and then blamed me for your argument about my colour. So in effect, you apologised and then took it back by blaming me for your own racist behaviour.

    And here is the thing, I am not debating the Zimmerman thread here. I am debating your abhorrent and racist behaviour in that thread that led to the moderator of that thread writing that mod note that also commented on your racist attitude displayed in that thread. Now, when you initially protested about Tiassa's mod post where he commented on your racist attitude in that thread, there was a review of said thread under way and quite a discussion about who was saying what, when and how, especially when this thread was started. How can I put this.. No one disagreed with Tiassa's Mod Note or statement. No one. Quite the contrary, I think some felt further action was necessary but Tiassa decided to let it go and move on from it. But you would not let it go. This thread cropped up and various other threads. You were reminded that no one disagreed with Tiassa's assessment in that Mod Note. You got angry, left the forum, burned many bridges by being overly insulting and rude and then you return, are again offensive and rude and you pick up this issue that was from May/June... Again..

    We are now in late September.

    How many times do you need to be told that Tiassa's mod note was correct and that no one in the back room disagreed with his assessment of your behaviour at the time?

    To put it kindly and honestly.

    It is not everybody else, Neverfly. It is you.

    In other words, it is not everyone else who is wrong.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page