Proposal: Ban "Undecided" from WE&P for one week

It was not an argument, it was a question. Why do you presume it's an argument? I was attempting to get one single straight answer. If he'd simply have said "because you made a claim that I was immature" or anything to that effect, that would have been a starting point for an actual dialog.

So you won't think for me, but you're okay with thinking for undecided and then you accuse me of politics? I think you're all mixed up because you're presuming you understand my question without actually understanding my question. Perhaps if you'd just asked me directly instead of saying 'what a stupid argument' I was making... ? I think that's really rude and ask that you reconsider.

Do you see how you're doing that right now? You doing exactly what you say I'm doing.

- You're talking about me, but you say "people", that is switching fro the particular to the general.
- I think you do that for exactly political reasons, as in to sway the readers to your perspective (even though the basis for your argument is a complete projection of your own expectations onto my words).

If you truly believe this, they you have violated your own conviction as far as I can tell.

LOL. You just did it again. With respect I ask if you're insinuating that I've lied and if so, request that you stop that line of accusation and assert that you are flat wrong. I know you don't think so, but I ask that if you respect me, you open your mind to the possibility that I'm not lying now, nor have I ever lied on sciforums. I have been frequently wrong, but I have never intentionaly lied.

Please tiassa, stop it. I don't want to rumble with you, you're simply wrong, the basis for this post is wrong and well, please, do not continue in this manner. I don't mean that in a mean way, it's a request from your neighbor.

I have no idea. I think that undecided has no integrity and no discernable principles until he just apologized to sparks. I'm still suspicious as I noted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please tiassa, stop it. I don't want to rumble with you, you're simply wrong, the basis for this post is wrong and well, please, do not continue in this manner. I don't mean that in a mean way, it's a request from your neighbor.

The Boogieman, watch it folks...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

'

Wow never have I seen one individual place their self-importance so high that it is literally immeasurable. Nemesis sucks...

Making love with his ego
Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man
We had to break up the band

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you enlighten me as to how we can all tell how important I think I am? Again, I don't see the connection between the quoted text the your purported point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Send us a picture of your mirrored world... because there is no other way you could explain you’re pretentious self-righteousness.

 

Sorry I don't reply to ineptitude of massive editing...

 

Persol

That's an unfortunate symptom of the mentality around Sciforums. A person accused is to be judged. Defending oneself is a sign of guilt. &c. Ad nauseam. Typical lowbrow mob perspective. It actually would suit my purpose well in issues I'm formulating regarding provocateurs if Undecided actually is Nico, because the arguments leading to Nico's banning are a triumph of provocateurism. Unfortunately, Nico didn't account for the curious herd rule--seen in pro sports, politics, &c. in American culture at least--that one should not defend oneself under certain circumstances.

• Pro sports: These days in pro football the league is reviewing violent incidents after the fact because fans have long recognized that the penalized party is usually the victim when fights break out.
• Politics: If someone lies about you and creates a massive scandal that really shouldn't be in the first place, the one thing you cannot do is defend yourself. A lack of passion suggests that you're conning people; Americans generally distrust passion--e.g. from Democratic frontrunner to "Herr Dean" in a day. Why did Clinton "dick around" with the nation in the zipper scandals? Because that was the only realistic and functional choice he had. And he did it brilliantly. But if he'd given just a solemn but dispassionate defense, it would have been perceived as an empty lie; the more emphatic and passionate he got, people would have perceived desperation.

But think about it for a moment ... Undecided should be furious at this point. He should be foaming-at-the-mouth incensed at this point. Sure, I think he's a little anxious, and perhaps a bit trigger-happy under pressure, but given that people really do set out to aggravate him ....

(There's an irony that strikes me here that would take more words to explain than it's worth. In fact, this whole situation is so fraught with ridiculous irony that a decent respect for the suggestion that people have lives to get to prevents me from exploring the ironic facets in depth.)

Given that he's got a dedicated corps of obsessive detractors, that he's got Wesmorris apparently willing to join the throng, that he's got this topic with his name in the title at all ... sure he could be holding up a little better, I guess, but he's doing well enough.

Being that people don't seem to want him to respond to this public flogging at all, and being that Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided's behalf at the extortive threat of a large conflagration of rhetorical crap, we might actually expect blind fire coming from Undecided soon enough. And people will be upset about that, but what do they really expect?

If people don't like the way he responds to their crap, they shouldn't be slinging crap for him to respond to in the first place. I mean, if someone brings you three pounds of sh@t, and you give them a sh@t sandwich in return, what really can they complain about if you did what you could with what you were given to work with?

 

Defending oneself is not a sign of guilt. Defending oneself by insulting others (when that is the accusation) is.

Yet, Clinton did defend himself. He also did this without insulting his accusers. While Undecided may not be blunt about it, the insults are still quite obvious.

Of all the things in life, I sure hope that this thread is not enough to push him to 'furious'.

It is easily noticed that most posters in WE&P set out to aggravate each other.... undecided included.

Yeah... that is quite wrong. Undecided has every reason to respond. His 'method' of response in parts of this thread do not help though.

I do not see why. Clearly the masses have spoken... and on his side.

I'd much rather they explain why the shit stinks.

 

Okay then. *sigh*

tiassa, you openly criticise me here. you, in doing so, you join undecided's thong. how is that any different that my stating that I think this lying jerk should be swatted?

IMO, this applies perfectly to nico. The last part in particular was my attempt at an amusing way to say he should be banned temporarily because he's a lying disruptive jerk (nico). He then proceeded to give nothing more than horrific input, leaving me to conclude that he was indeed the person I knew.

I decided to try to reason with him anyway by simply asking him for the basis for his repeated accusations and he would not answer. He is free to avoid my questions, and I am free to continue asking questions when he makes accusations no? Perhaps if he'd simply asked me about my accusations to begin with we'd be done? Yeah I know, it's all my fault eh tiassa? LOL. You couldn't be wrong right? LOL. You don't see how he was a total jerk to all of sciforums?:

"I would imagine simply people are so threatened by us that they attack us for no warranted reason. Notice that I have to usually debate against people who are just there to argue with no point in the end. There are great WEP posters, Tiassa (you), Godless, Hypewaders, Spyke, and when he complaining and acting like a child EI_Sparks. The rest...well... They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy"

To me, this is completely disrespectful of this community (besides you tiassa). Given that and that coffee said he thinks he's nico. 2+2= lying jerk who needs to be banned becaue he's a lying jerk, regardless of his username.

I realized in after my initial post that I should have explained why I thought he was a lying jerk, so in my second post I explained it:

IMO, his comment was disrespectful to every other poster on this board but you and him (note the "us" was you and he). Were you at all influenced by this stroke of your ego?

You imply that I'm generally rhetorical. Please give at least one example. I simply didn't want to have to go into an in depth analysis of every word in this thread. It's exhausting and all in all a waste of my time due to the fact that you cannot speak directly. I think "obtuse" is quite fitting, though I still don't know if you intend to be that way. You call my aversion to brawling with you fucking 'extortive'? I think that is distorted. I've never considered an attempt to avoid an un-necessary fight "extortive". Hmm. Yeah I think that's very twisted.

The only reason I didn't want YOU involved is because of the 100,000,000 words you have to put into saying "you suck". I fuckign hate that, it's SO goddamn annoyign to me. ARgh. Why to you distort that into "Wes doesn't want anybody writing on Undecided's behalf"? You take an issue with YOU and make it an issue with everyone? LOL. Man how are you so off?

I expect a direct conversation. It may start with a little mudslinging, but it's easy to get out of if you're willing. IMO, I responded to mudslinging (as I mentioned above where he had called all of sci 'afraid', which is just annoying to no end due to excessive smarm). I didn't intend to sling mud, I was emotionally satisfied that a person I thought deserved shit was getting it. In the process I did sling mud, but I still think it's exactly accurate for my take of the scenario. He was acting like a shit and I called him on it, as you are doing now no? I stopped slinging mud soon after I started.

I will concede that it may have been a miscommunication in that his original comment about you and he striking fear into the hearts of sciforums was an attempt at humor. It's not really very funny to me as you might have noted by my reaction. I think it's disgusting really, but maybe I was being stodgy or something at the time, it's possible.

He could have just said "I was only kidding" (since it was obvious that to me it seemed that he wasn't) and flamed me a bit or whatever and I would have reconsidered. (I'm not sure what the results of the consideration would have been) Instead he moved to jerkulate. Having already done so that was fine, so I just wanted him to explain his accusations and repeatedly and with growing patience asked that he answer the questions, none of which were answered.

finally, i reiterate that i think it's perfectly valid for him to choose to ignore my questions and talk shit the whole time and it is perfectly fair for me to continue to ask him to justify his assertions. it is my perogative to continue this as long as he keeps slinging accusations.

 

But where did I claim that he shouldn't respond? I think it should be obvious I wanted him to respond, preferably with answers to my questions. Further, I don't care if people speak up for him, I care if tiassa involves himself in my bickering with someone else which tiassa apparently doesn't understand, in which case I strongly suspect that it will take hours and hours and hours to get abosolutely nowhere, only in that he an I have a history of long dead end conversations. I don't see how this could be productive, so I'm more than willing to listen to other people's side of the story regarding undecided, but i'd rather tiassa leave it alone such that we avoid a big huge thing. too late I guess.

 

I don't think he's consented to that yet.

At what point?

That was quite an entrance, Wes. Showy. Useless. But quite an entrance nonetheless.

I would ask you to try explaining it to me, but I'm aware that you just skim through topics looking for ammunition.

Go for it, though. Surprise me.

Look at the topic, Wes.

Disrespectful of this community?

You pick the strangest time to invoke your principles, Wes.

And you are a lying jerk, Wes.

Jesus H. Baldheaded Freaking Christ on a Pony, Wes ... did you really think I wouldn't notice?

So pack your bags while you're at it, boy.

And what a useful explanation that was.

Think for just a minute, Wes, of how annoyed people get when I call them "boy" with all of that laconic southern bite. (See above, amended for your benefit: So pack your bags while you're at it, boy.)

This statement is factually incorrect.

However, given that "thinking for you" isn't a stretch on this occasion (the common phrase is, "I think I know what you mean,") I'll go so far as to point out that Undecided was responding directly to me. His statement is well-within the bounds of context. Your error would appear to be in confusing the general and particular.

Not in the least. In fact, were he not placed on the defensive by the nature of the topic, I would consider that paragraph to be a strategic error.

However, it seems to have had some effect.

How so?

The bit you're complaining about, Wes, refers to you telling me to butt out of the topic because you don't want to rumble with me. Sounds a bit extortive to me.

This is your problem, Wes, not mine.

This is definitively your problem.

Because you threatened a rumble if I didn't butt out.

So it's only me you're threatening, Wes?

Nonetheless, it's still extortive.

It's passages like this that do such damage to your integrity, Wes. You expect a direct conversation? Try having one.

In the meantime, I recognize that your priorities are, indeed, your chosen priorities.

I think he has every right to be blazing furious.

Yet you have yet to contribute anything positive or useful to the topic.

You're a petty vigilante thug, Wes. That's all I see in your participation in this topic, from your flaming entrance to your petty provocation. And apparently for absolutely no good reason.

I can deal with that, but what are the practical implications?

He could have.

Excuse him for being courteous enough to speak your language of pettiness, Wes.

So you walk in, spit on him, and then get upset at him because you think his reaction qualifies as jerkulation?

He's got better things to do than offer you the courtesies you historically refuse other posters. How can you possibly demand of Undecided what you are unwilling to demand of yourself?

A gold star for the no-brainer?

Just as it was your prerogative to walk in and be a paternalistic, curmudgeonly twit.

Wes, I suspect that this is another case in which your politics and ambitions leave you as the only person asking this question. I would invite you to go back and read the discussion between Persol and myself.

So ... why, exactly, did you spit at me to get my attention, Wes?

Ah, and it is just about threatening me. I could have guessed. Thank you for clearing that up, though.

Wes, I see you trying to split certain hairs. It won't work. Sciforums is evolving. So get out of the tar pit or become a fossil.

 

How is that more than a cheap shot? I cruise through the threads looking for things that incite me to comment. If you call that "looking for ammunition" I don't care.

Yeah, he seemed to be on an egomaniacal bent like david mayes or wanderer, or nico. Maybe you're right that i confused the specific for the general in his comment, but I just reread it and disagree with your assessment. He was talking specifically to you yes, but making a general comment about how everyone is "so threatened by us (you and him)". He did mention he thought three other posters are good, then said "The rest...well... They are either threatened, or they are just there to annoy."

That is just icky.

I stand corrected, he insulted everyone except a total of five members of sci: "himself, Tiassa (you), Godless, Hypewaders, Spyke". As I had just learned for likely sure that he really was nico (via coffee), it struck me as a particularly icky comment, mostly from my knowledge of nico. perhaps I'm incorrect. if so, I wouldn't think it would have been difficult for him to explain, but obviously he didn't have to. as such, I just kept asking him why he was saying what he was saying, in hopes of changing the dialog from shit to productive. obviously it was not effective but he kept talking shit so I kept asking. *shrug*

I don't care what you think of it tiassa.

I'm not going to indulge you further at this time. Is that direct enough?

 

Because it's accurate and relevant. Remember, Wes, that you have repeatedly noted in our discussions that you didn't read, that you don't read, or that you didn't want to read something.

And what comments they are ....

So ... what now? For your benefit, then, Undecided should not respond to me?

That is your opinion, Wes.

You're perfectly welcome to feel that way.

Thank you for the hearty chuckle.

Fine with me.

But get this straight, you gutter vigilante punk: Don't threaten me.

Y'hear, boy?

Got it?

Good.

 

Right. So after a lot of personal insults and noise from Undecided, and a completely justified request that the WE&P forum be moderated in general, Porfiry suggested this thread as a new method for moderation. Given the poll results, and given how clear-cut the case was in the first place against Undecided, and given the total lack of any moderation within this thread (what use is a regulatory system where the offending poster can ramble on unchecked about completely irrelevant topics? Did this not strike anyone else as an insult to the purpose of this entire forum?), I've decided that Porfiry's suggestion is a rather acute failure. And frankly, that's it for me. I've seen no attempts in the time I've been posting here to moderate WE&P or any other forum. The average poster (in fact, the vast majority of the posters) give the impression of being particularly sub-par high school students. The few who don't sound like they're still completing high school tend to sound as though they would be happier posting on freerepublic.com, or just off shooting people with a different skin tone or culture to their own. The very, very, very few whose posts are consistently worth reading, which basicly boils down to tiassa, are simply not worth the time it takes to sieve their posts from the rest of the dross and noise on the boards.

Simply put, ladies and gentlemen, there are boards out there with far, far higher signal-to-noise ratios, where basic civility is a mandatory prerequisite for posters, and where as a result, time is better spent.

Porfiry, I'm cancelling my subscription and you can delete my account.

 

How rude. (snort)

 

Okay it's later now.

It is innacurate and thusly irrelevant. That you would characterize that I skim threads as "looking for ammunition" is simply indicative of your distaste for me. I skim threads "looking for something interesting". When I stumble upon something slagging everyone in this forum in a childish manner, someone who I have just recieved strong evidence is a lying punk child (even if that evidence was incorrect) I felt compelled to comment. Since this thread was set up specifically to discuss the validity of undecided's membership of this community, I commented about him. Since this is a public forum, anyone is free to comment on my comments to him. However in this case I asked that you specifically not do so, only after you insinuated something shitty about me and only in an attempt to avoid further shit between us.

It's a matter of practicality. I have a life to attend to. I find YOUR STYLE (note that my comments about reading were directed to you, and how I read the forums where you are not concerned is none of your concern unless you have a specific issue about something) incredibly cumbersome and innefficient. I understand that you find it necessary as it is your style, but IMO, it's difficult to deal with because you are IMO, wholly indirect and oblivious of what I see as obvoius. I realize as well that your impression of me is similar and so instead of indulge in an encounter I knew would go nowhere I respectfully asked that you butt out.

The worst part to me is that you will now insist (I guesstimate from experience) that my motives are what you say they are rather than what I've attempted to explain to you... no matter how much time I spend trying to explain them to you.

I commented about his comment to you. Did I ask him to shutup?

Which is exactly what this thread asks for regarding undecided. If you want to start a thread about how bad I suck feel free, but this one is already dedicated.

LOL. Why gee thanks for allowing me my own perspective tiassa, if only for a moment.

I never intended to.

 

This is still going on? It reminds me of "Ferris Beulers day off", at the end when he says "It's over, go home..." I find it painfully poignant that someone here is desperately in need of being listened too. Living in the world of innuendo, lies, smoke screens, mirrors, and illusions has corrupted a person here so violently that, he/she believes that their subjective views on a situation is fact. Calling others as ilk for instance, yet basing it on nothing more then spite, and irrational hatred. Anyone who has read the conversation should notice that I was attacked 3 times on this thread. At least one was within justifiable anger and justifiable results. The other two were just vehement attacks by posters. I find it largely disturbing that some people get angry at things that aren't even directed at them, and literally make up new rules in the English language to justify their claims. Of course we are dealing with a battle of the wills here; Nietzsche would have loved this thread. The will to power here is as strong as it was at Stalingrad, but sadly there really is only one actor on this stage, and the only power struggle is with himself, it's really a cannibalization of character. He is the only one who is actually considering himself so important that only he is the only thing that matters. Notice the extreme egoism, and self-righteousness exhorted by this poster. But for no reason? I have been passively watching him waste his time in lame attempts at ad hom arguments, and trying to pass it off as a legitimate critique of me. I really couldn't be bothered, that poster is ignorant on issues pertaining to me, and it's evident. Anyone who regularly visits WE&P knows that is a tinge of as tiassa says, provocateurism. He totally ignores that fact, which makes him ignorant, and that fits perfectly with the Platonic idea of the Allegory of the cave, he sees only what he wants to see, and when told the truth, reverts to his own version of the story because he sadly knows no better. This thread ladies and gentlemen is not about me, it's about provocateurism, and antagonists. Life is a stage….

 

Right, Wes. That makes about as much sense as I believe you.

That you would defend yourself as such is indicative of your inability to avoid the issue. You've admitted it in the past, even boasted that you don't read everything. Yet how often does that something "interesting" something that compels you according to your priorities to attack a poster?

So ... you attack the guy?

You attacked the guy.

Funny, seeing that from you.

I'd be interested to know what it is you're referring to.

Respectfully?

You threatened a rumble, Wes.

Real respectful, boy.

Consider this, Wes:

• There is a difference between you telling me what to think and actually explaining the issue. You say it's so, but one of the reasons I'm interested in what the hell it is that set you off is that I have no idea what you're referring to, and thus your "butt out" seems rather quite rude. So don't just say it's so. Try explaining it, if that's what you genuinely think you want to do.

Well, since you decided to take Undecided in a context that allowed you to attack him instead of the context of his discussion with me, I think it very inappropriate of you to attack him the way you did. It was cheap, dishonest, and pretty much what I've come to expect of you, Wes.

If you were in a courtroom, and they asked you to come and testify about Undecided would you tell the court about him or would you sit on the witness stand and yell at him?

You should have given your opinion, not made up a bunch of nonsense as a basis for attacking him directly. You sought to provoke in this topic and you got a reaction, Wes.

You're welcome. Especially since it's more than you'll give people.

Right.

Whatever.

If you say so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

As I have said numerous times before, he lives in a house of smoke and mirrors, unable to see the grievous errors in his basic logic. We cannot expect the person to say anything but mere rhetorical responses, and rationalizations. Which doesn't not help his cause. I expect there will be overtones of "Dennis Miller" here.

 

Unsolicited Advice

It may be time, Undecided, to consider simply letting this topic run its course.

I admit this suggestion comes because the necessity of your personal proactive defense happens to get in my way.

Sorry, it's just that I think this topic is a prime example of why SFOG should not at this time be undertaking ban proposals.

As we look around, we see what the topic has brought. The plus side is that you've decidedly won the vote; discussion at this point is merely reflective of the acrimony of the topic. People have not, for a while, made any real case about your banning. The discussion has shifted to sidebar campaigning. The only reason this topic with your name in the title is still alive is because other issues are sustaining it.

So I think at this time you can afford to leave the field; without you to shoot at, I'll be the only target left in here, and at that point, this topic can appropriately die, as that discussion I'm wrapped up in contributes nothing to the topic anyway.

Take comfort in the historical record established in this topic. People have taken their shots, and recorded some rather unnecessary aggression. At this point, all that's left is a rather ... disgraceful mess that I don't think was intended at the outset.

In that sense, I offer also the strange comfort that comes from the chaos; SFOG needs to be stronger than this, and this topic will stand as a testament to the need for foundational process and structure.

Whether or not any individual's complaint against you is legitimate was originally irrelevant to me, though I tend to view the issue--obviously--in different scale than others. So at the present, when I see a direction by which you can hop out of this nasty crossfire, catch a breather, and enjoy the spectacle of this topic in its dying throes, I at least want to mention it to you. It's not that I would suggest you shouldn't defend yourself, but that I think the defense is established and that the first seizures rippling through this dying topic will leave people with a choice to let it die or to embarrass themselves trying to keep it alive.

Again, I do not wish to suggest that you should not defend yourself. It's just that I want this topic to die. SFOG will be stronger as this debate passes into obscurity.

But you've defeated the ban proposal comfortably. The only thing left is for people to continue to seek to provoke you in order to extend their complaints. This topic can be left to die.

The last note I wanted to include is that the audience sees more than you might give them credit for. To the one, prudence is often wisdom insofar as one might choose to make sure the bases are covered. To the other, though, is the vote.

You've won. Let's wrap this thing up and let it die.

Or ... so says my unsolicited two cents.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree, I bid this thread adieu for now. I will re-visit this episode of sci history with contempt and with hope. I have seen that this thread has changed the face of sci, and in this I am not joking. This thread was the first true test in democracy, and a test of egos. I have had my fun, and it looks like Sparks sure had his. I am sorry at his passing from sci, but I guess it was destined to happen. This thread like Dennis Miller will not die soon sadly. It seems that I have caused quite a up stir here on sci, for better or for worse. At first I must admit I was scared that I was going to be banned, for what I considered a over-zealous poster who felt emotionally torn over semantics. The more I read I more I actually sympathized with Sparks, and just said sorry. So Tiassa my advice to you is simple as well, just don't let the flamers get to you. The thing is that he objects to us because we say that there are trolls, flamers, and disingenuous people here on sci, all the while proving those same points. Just Tiassa don't waste too much time on this, it's really not worth it.

P.S. I'd also like to thank the 19 valiant people who saw beyond the B.S that this thread presented you.

Ciao! (for now)...