Redux: Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Nov 1, 2012.


Do I support the proposition? (see post #2)

Poll closed Nov 11, 2013.
  1. Anti-abortion: Yes

  2. Anti-abortion: No

  3. Pro-choice: Yes

  4. Pro-choice: No

  5. Other (Please explain below)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    It's the internet though! Sure not everyone has to die like a Shakespearean tragedy, but I can get some cathartic treatment by watching everyone make an arse out of themselves. All from the safety of my computer desk.

    OK, so I'll add to the discussion...

    If I was wearing The God Helmet in church and thinking about how wonderful babies are that would totally whip the nexus of my mind into challenging morality that maybe those evil devil worshipers are a great threat to society and should be put to death.

    Being screwed up in the head makes introspection fun!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    On Thursday, the Mississippi house passed a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, without exceptions for rape or incest, even though the state’s only remaining abortion clinic only performs abortions up to 16 weeks.


    The house passed the bill, HB 1400, on an 89-22 vote.

    The sponsor, Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Braxton), said the bill is needed in part because of recent health department data indicating several hundred abortions performed at “unknown gestational age,” and at least one performed after 20 weeks. The language of the bill justifies the ban based on medically disproven ideas that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks.

    Rep. Adrienne Wooten (D-Jackson) pushed back against Gipson for not including exceptions for rape or incest, saying that children who have been victimized and impregnated may wait longer to seek assistance because they have been told not to tell anyone. An amendment introduced by Rep. Toby Barker (R-Hattiesburg), who describes himself as “pro-life,” would have provided exceptions for rape and incest, but was defeated.

    The bill now moves to the state senate.

    And the madness continues.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member




    It ought to be quite clear to anybody who has been following this that I am well aware of all the relevant facts and matters of dispute.

    Enough said.

    There is no fake review. Everybody is free to conduct his or her own personal review of all the discussion that has taken place.

    The matter of lightgigantic's ban will be decided by vote of the moderator group, not by fiat of a single Administrator.

    You get one vote. I get one vote. Each of the other moderators gets one vote. I take action in accordance with the majority vote.

    What's fake about that?

    You're off in fairy land at this point.

    You're telling me that you didn't ban LG for "hysterical"?

    Then why have you spent pages and pages trying to defend your actions in regards to the exchange you had with LG prior to his ban on the whole "hysterical" thing?

    It's almost like the "blowjob" thing doesn't even matter to you. What matters is that LG didn't jump when you asked him to over your interpretation of the word "hysterical".

    Myself, Syne and Trippy have spent time documenting how your conversation with LG over the "hysteria" thing went. I invite members to look at the original thread and also do this for themselves, if anybody cares. That's three people who have examined the matter in detail, yet here you are still claiming that there's not a shred of affirmative proof. Give me a break.

    The case has been made directly to you by three separate moderators and some other posters as well. You just choose to ignore it.

    The factual review was done and dusted days ago. Now we're having a vote on what should be done, given the facts.

    All relevant questions and answers on this are already out there, many of them in the public domain. We have about 5 active threads on this topic at the current time.

    There's really nothing more I have to add on the factual situation, and that has been true for quite some time now.

    Most of this is misleading nonsense, presumably put out there for the public spectacle of it all, possibly as an attempt to gain supporters for your cause.

    All of this has already been addressed and refuted where necessary. I have nothing new to add. This being a public thread, I'm happy to answer any questions from members who want more information or clarification of anything.

    Tiassa will have his interpretation of the facts. If four or five other people dispute that version, so be. All the others must be wrong, because Tiassa is always right.

    Let me be clear:

    LG's punishment, whatever it ends up being, will be decided by majority vote of the moderators. Those votes, presumably, will be based on the evidence and on the policy outlooks of the moderators.

    In my personal opinion, LG is guilty of sexual harassment, but not for the "hysteria" comments that you're all wound up about. His offence, in this particular case, was to directly target Bells with his "blowjob" comment. Again, in my opinion - one opinion among many - the appropriate punishment for this, in all the circumstances - is a 1 month ban. That will be my vote.

    LG is also "guilty" of a whole raft of nebulous offences which we might classify as "trolling". Here I refer to the definition and explanation of trolling given in the site rules. However, LG was banned explicitly for sexual harassment. It is important to keep that in mind. For trolling, LG might have deserved a temporary ban in line with the usual ban cycle. For sexual harassment, an argument can be made for a permanent ban. In the circumstances here I do not advocate a permanent ban.

    Are we done?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It isn't clear to me. For example:
    The first thing this member notices for himself is that Syne is a participant in the problematical posting worst exemplified by LG. You appear to be unaware of this, and even reliant on Syne for "documentation" of LG's behaviors.

    The second is that Tiassa appears to be completely and soberly accurate and sensible throughout that "conversation", while LG is his usual symptomatic self.
    Four or five of whom? And if you have an actual grounded dispute, why can't you explain it in some way that makes sense? Instead:
    So you are not, then, aware of the facts of the matter as they are apparent to anyone familiar with LG's posting over the past many months and on this latest thread - such as the targeted sexual harassment piled on a history of misogynistic innuendo flagrantly visible in the "hysteria" posts, or the bad faith and dishonesty featured in essentially all of LG's posting and continually trolling behavior on this thread and forum. To you these are not facts, but "versions" which, because they are "disputed" by you and maybe a couple of others, are matters of opinion (the "guilty" is in quotes, above) one decides by majority vote.

    This is why you have not been inundated with complaints about LG's posting in the past few months, a matter you found puzzling earlier. The facts of LG's behavior are invisible to you, and you have made that clear in the past.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat — Duplicity

    Mod Hat — Duplicity

    "You ought to be working to convince the others." James R, 17 Feb. 2014

    "Most of this is misleading nonsense, presumably put out there for the public spectacle of it all, possibly as an attempt to gain supporters for your cause." James R, 18 Feb. 2014

    This is the problem with duplicity:

    It's easy for the Administration to try to say that in public when the record the membership cannot see establishes the following facts:

    (1) The Administration "concluded" that the action was unjust and a matter of vindictiveness without having reviewed the relevant record.

    (2) The Administration has made specific affirmative arguments requiring knowledge of LG's motives and thought process; asked how those things are known, the Administration has chosen to not answer.

    (3) Even with those questions still unanswered, the Administration opened the poll, asking people to vote quickly.

    (4) The Administration has opened two additional back-room discussions, in addition to the original thread discussing the issues.

    (5) The Administration checked into that thread nearly five hours after opening the poll, starting off with a declaration suggesting that the thread had not yet been viewed.

    (6) The Administration has misrepresented the issue according to the following proposition: Either the Administration is lying when it says it reviewed the record, or the Administration is lying to the general membership by posing questions contrary to the established record.

    We might consider that last point:

    It's all part of the same argument, and has been from the beginning; my rationale is consistent. The only separation one can imply between the hysteria issue and the rest is if one insists despite the record.

    This is especially odious, given the eight days that the following has been on the record in the back room:

    Fetus? I gave him his chance. Interestingly, I'm pretty sure he understood why proof of negative is a fallacy before he went off, came out, or whatever it is he actually did. There are multiple trolling offenses there; if the guy would just come up for air and give a rational explanation, that's enough for me, but he's determined not to. (NC/90)

    And then there's this statement, made the next day:

    Fetus is a bizarre question; I loathe the idea that it comes to this, but I just can't get him to come up for air. Trolling, including wilful absurdity and fallacious rhetorical demands, requires some response; I haven't figured out what that is. (NC/93)

    There was a larger action planned, but either the Administration never reviewed that discussion, or else is attempting to lie to the general membership.

    What has happened in between those two moments is that another moderator reasonably requested a stay against that larger action. If the Administration is aware of these posts, the above-quoted question is deliberately deceptive. If the Administration is unaware of these posts, then it has still not reviewed the facts.

    Please consider those two statements. And then:

    "It's almost like the 'blowjob' thing doesn't even matter to you."​

    It might also be enlightening to consider the Administration's statement compared to what was discussed in this very thread yesterday: "A note on the Electric defense", which includes the note that, "It's not that EF was ever in the clear. Anyone with access to the moderators' discussion who would suggest EF has gotten off scot-free is lying."

    The reality is that the process would have gotten around to discussing what to do about other offenses in that thread, but was interrupted so we could have this little love-in.

    You have merely insisted that your opinion is correct, and have refused to make a rational argument, derived from the facts on record, in support.

    Syne has explicitly refused to review the evidence.

    Trippy is carrying your burden right now, and really doing quite the fine job with it. But right now that discussion is stuck on what can be described as a suggestion derived from an assumption and asserted as fact.

    I admit, it's closer than you've gotten, by miles.

    See, the difference between your argument and Trippy's is that he is actually trying to address the facts. Even though he and I have yet to resolve the issue, he's attending the record and actually trying to make the argument. This is a far different method than yours, which is to declare your opinion and, with will, ignore the facts on record.

    If three people tell us human beings have never been to the moon, does that make it true? If two of those people refuse to consider the facts, how does that help their argument? If the third actually tries to make the case, and gets stuck on a problem of assumption-as-fact, well, at least we finally have an affirmative argument, but it's certainly not proof.

    I would reiterate that the Administration has yet to explain how it knows what LG was thinking. After all, if the hypothesis requiring so many assumptions is exactly right, as the Administration suggested, how does the Administration know what LG was thinking? Twice this question has been asked, and twice the Administration has ignored it.

    Given that the Administration is apparently deficiently informed about the facts ("It's almost like the 'blowjob' thing doesn't even matter to you"), I would suggest the factual review, if done, is grossly inadequate.

    Relevant according to the Administration? Or relevant according to the actual relevance of the facts?

    Again, see that ludicrous gaffe about "the 'blowjob' thing".

    This is by the Administration's choosing:

    (1) The issue was already under discussion in a moderators' thread.

    (2) A members thread opened with Wynn's inquiry.

    (3) The Administration started a third thread in the back room.

    (4) The Administration started a fourth thread in the back room.

    (5) The Administration has chosen to entertain the discussion in this thread, as well, continuing despite the moderator note that:

    If we are to have this discussion now, we cannot discount history and pretend this is a new phenomenon. And we really ought to have that conversation in another thread. You know, fifteen months, sixteen hundred posts, two threads, and we're still not discussing the topic.

    Nobody is certain why the Administration has chosen this route.

    It has been addressed and refuted according to the satisfaction of the Administration in its effort to manipulate data to fit a presupposed conclusion.

    More political arguments?

    It would have been more appropriate for you to open the vote after you had reviewed the facts and answered the questions put to you about your faulty presuppositions.

    The Administration has focused on the blowjob bit from the outset, arguing affirmatively and with much confidence that the only possible way LG could have interpreted #1065 in this thread would be that it refers to the blowjob comment.

    And now we see the accusation that, "It's almost like the 'blowjob' thing doesn't even matter", a statement made despite the explicit record that the Administration has allegedly reviewed.

    To be specific, LG was banned explicitly for sexual harassment, trolling, and lying.

    Is it so hard to look it up in the ban list? Or perhaps the ban log? (See #1518.)

    As in, the two records that explicitly say LG's ban is for sexual harassment, trolling, and lying?

    We might also note that the member complaint in AtM also recognizes the the explicit listed reasons for LG's departure.

    Given that the combination of the sexual harassment and trolling, which involved deliberately deceptive posts, is what did LG in, perhaps we might ask the Administration for some clarification on why it is trying to separate those issues.

    These are the problems of duplicitous behavior.
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Unfortunately, this is one of the pitfalls of the vast majority of the discussions that the moderators have been having being in the Moderators forum. I will copy another post after this one, from the moderators' forum, showing a little of my analysis of the situation.

    I am aware of all of Syne's postings in the current thread and have been for days now.

    See the following post.

    Does it matter? The moderators and non-moderator members.

    If my position doesn't make sense to you, I'm happy to answer questions. I said that earlier. Most of what I've written on this has been in the Moderators' forum, not the public one. I'm sorry if a full explanation doesn't appear in the current thread or in the other one in the public forum. You've read that one, I assume - the one titled "lightgigantic's ban: ..." etc. etc.?

    Wrong again. I'm aware of LG's general posting style. Indeed, I have been on the receiving end of it in a number of arguments I've personally had with him. This "targeted sexual harassment" you refer to, that has supposedly gone on for many months ... that I'm not really familiar with. It's possible that it happened in threads where I wasn't participating, I guess.

    I don't dispute LG's general avoidance of addressing inconvenient issues. I don't dispute a past record of trollish behaviour.

    My problem with this permanent ban, which I thought I'd made clear, was that it was putatively for sexual harassment based on repeated use of the word "hysteria". Moreover, this ban did not follow the usual ban cycle. LG has had no official warnings or bans for the past 5 years. Then, out of the blue, suddenly there's a permanent ban.

    Given the lack of official action taken over the past 5 years, it appears the same can also be said for every other moderator.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    This post is copied from the Moderators forum.

    Original time stamp: 13 February, 2014, at GMT 11:30 am.


    Here's some of the documentation you requested.

    Here's your first post on the "hysteria" issue, directed at lightgigantic:

    In that post you write:

    lightgigantic's (LG's) first reponse is here in post #1066.

    He ask about how you took ElectricFetus's (EF's) "blowjob"/feeding the trolls comment. No discussion of the "hysteria" issue. In other words, LG assumes you're referring to EF's comment and not "hysteria". LG does refer to Bell's "hysterical rage" but there's no advocating an old-fashioned treatment for that. LG is clearly using the word "hysterical" in its modern sense and he has no idea what you're talking about when you claim he is saying that Bells needs to be sexually assaulted for therapeutic benefit.

    So in #1068, sure that LG is avoiding the issue, you take him to task for trying to change the subject (by talking about EF's comment and not the "hysteria" thing you want him to address).

    Here, you ask him for the first time what EF's comment has to do with "your rape advocacy" (i.e. LG's supposed advocacy of rape by his using the word "hysteria").

    LG reponds in #1069 that it was EF who made the "blowjob" comment. Again, it is clear that he does not understand at this point that you are accusing him (LG) of rape advocacy. He thinks you've mistaken what EF said for a statement made by LG.

    So you ask him again and again he quotes only EF's comment.

    And you ask him the same question again, without adding any new explanation of how he (LG) has advocated rape. You expect him to piece together what you, Tiassa, are thinking. You're giving him no help.

    LG's confusion becomes especially clear inpost #1078. I quote:

    In other words, LG is asking you to explain why you claim that he (LG) has advocated rape.

    The only help you're willing to offer in post #1080 is this:

    In other words, you demand that LG put the pieces together and somehow work out what you might be getting at. You're not going to give him any hints. You're just waiting for him to fail your test at this point.

    In post #1085, LG still thinks you're talking about EF's blowjob comment. He also says:

    In other words, he is onto your game. He knows you're referring to something he is supposed to have said or done, but he doesn't know what. Once again, he asks you to clarify.

    In response, you write a moderator note (post #1088) warning people in general that "the clock is running", but not mentioning LG specifically. Now there's a threat of a definite ban on the way, but LG still has no idea what is being asked of him or why.

    Quite reasonably, he says (#1089):

    Then we have an 11 hour gap, after which you, Tiassa say:

    ... whatever that is supposed to mean.

    Presumably, it means that you're now looking for a reason to ban LG based on unspecified rape advocacy dating back 15 months, that you apparently warned him about at some point.

    LG replies (post #1101), saying:

    In other words, after all the wasted words and blustering, LG still has no idea what you're requiring of him or how he might avoid the ban you're about to hand out to him.

    And that's it! Some time after this post, LG is banned by Tiassa.

    LG never knew why he was about to be banned.

    At no time was he ever given an official and specific and personal warning. At no time was there any specific discussion of his offence.

    In short, LG was denied what is called in law natural justice. He was not informed of the charge laid against him. He was given no opportunity to reply to the specifics of the charge.

    This was a kangaroo court with an outcome that might have been pre-planned.


    Now, let me be clear. I am not suggesting that LG did nothing wrong in that thread. I'm not even suggesting that a ban was inappropriate. But a permanent ban on the grounds of "hysteria" and an unspecified history of "misogyny" is unjustified.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Do you think putting "Mod Hat" on your posts makes them somehow more authoritative? In the end, you're just expressing your opinion, same as I am.

    I'm not about to cover old ground again, so excuse me if I don't respond point by point. I've already spent hours on this today, and that's longer than it deserves. And more specifically, it's longer than you deserve.

    Why make such an issue of the "hysteria" thing and the whole sexual harassment angle, if you really just wanted to ban LG for trolling?

    One thing at a time.

    Advice to members: keep your heads down! You could be next, if Tiassa has his way (which at this point of time seems likely).

    Yeah. That's what it's almost like. You won't give ground on the "hysteria" issue, even though on that you were clearly in the wrong. And so much space is being devoted to that issue that the more important issue of sexual harassment in general is being buried in the bullshit.

    I have copied one of my posts making the rational argument you seek, so that it is now available to all members who wish to see my argument on the "hysteria" issue. I invite them to judge for themselves whether I have made a rational argument there or not.

    Trippy has his own judgment to make.

    I finished making mine days ago. That post I copied above - that was posted 6 days ago, now. And you're still arguing the issue. Not that it matters. I get only one vote.

    If in doubt, LG deserves the benefit of the doubt. He is permabanned. You get to sit there and put the case against him, with no opportunity for him to respond.

    See the post quoted above. And, as you know, that's the tip of the iceberg. We have a moderator forum full of stuff about this.

    And if 9 people vote on the facts and the vote ends up 5-4, what does that suggest to you?

    I invite readers to refer to the record and try to judge the "hysteria" issue for themselves. My post above is a guide, but if you don't trust that, then do the leg work yourself.

    No. You've just ignored the answer twice.

    I know what LG was thinking because it's clear from his posts in this thread.

    LG wasn't banned for posting off-topic.

    Why? The poll is open until Friday (my time). I allowed an entire week for moderators to discuss the matter and make up their minds.

    And for those who voted early and who have changed their minds (if any), they need only post that they want to change their vote and I'll count them on the other side once the poll closes.

    Not hard.

    For trolling and lying, LG would have been up for a 3 day ban under the site rules, according to his active infraction count at the time of flagging the offences.

    He was, in fact, permanently banned.

    Therefore, I conclude that the usual ban cycle was overridden because of sexual harassment - harassment to the extent that only a permanent ban was appropriate. No warning. No temporary ban, not even a long one. Only a permanent one would do.

    That's unless we're going to start banning people retrospectively for behaviour three years ago or 10 years ago that only now strikes us as unacceptable. Under that policy, who will be next?

    To me, this still has the smell of you punishing LG because he refused to jump through a hoop you set for him - a hoop that he didn't see was there until after it was too late.

    But don't worry. It looks like the vote will probably be such that you'll get your way in the end despite everything I've written on this matter over the past week.
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    You mean mistrial?

    But for entertainment value, can you posts Bell's comments in such an abridged fashion as LG's are?

    :EDIT: One time I remember rpenner suspended me in arguing with AlexG about something I was right in... But in AlexG's failure to see one point I went on a tirade of adolescent stupidity. I was angry. Why the heck should I have to spoon feed someone the obvious? But cause of all the crap I said I didn't protest a suspension.

    I also noticed LG has like 15,000 more posts than me?
  13. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Why are two moderators arguing about the fine points of our moderating duties out on the public subforums instead of in our own super-secret Moderators-Only subforum???

    This preposterous "discussion" has gotten so badly out of hand, while at the same time accomplishing absolutely nothing, that it's warped the moderators' own sense of ethics.

    Since it seems to be okay for moderators to bitch at each other in public, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it again until somebody finally hears me: SHUT DOWN THIS USELESS STREAM OF CRAP AND MOVE IT TO THE CESSPOOL WHERE IT BELONGS.

    What's next, moderators banning each other??? Am I the only member of SciForums who is EMBARRASSED by this pointless nonsense? Do you guys really want the entire cyberspace community to find THIS nonsense on OUR website when they google "abortion?" Nice advertisement for a website that claims to be all about science and scholarship.

    Facebook is more polite, more interesting, scrolls faster, and presents useful information just about as often as we do. And not only that, it has adorable photos of cute kittens!

    I still can't figure out how to post a photo or graphic here, on this damn stupid useless Macintosh. And the servers at the office won't allow it because they know that my productivity would drop even further.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Ah ha! I knew you'd slip up.

    I don't think I've been banned from sciforums before, but your secret stone mason ways scare me. Embarrassed you proclaim. How are we to know it is only to hide the plans for evil?

    You only want to keep the masses ignorant, otherwise, people might begin to challenge old doctrines when they see how the dark side of the force corrupts.

    Makes perfect sense
  15. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Abortion is wrong. Women who advocate for abortion are decadent and morally corrupt. Would anyone here like to have been aborted? Raise your hands.
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    The thought of suicide is a powerful comfort -it helps one through many dreadful nights.
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    And men who advocate for abortion?
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    These are merely opinions. They carry precisely ZERO weight in a scientific discussion.

    This is the reason for my shrill complaints: SciForums is supposed to be a place of science and scholarship, and in a place of science and scholarship there should NEVER be a discussion that consists almost entirely of statements of opinions, and restatements of the statements, and criticism of the opinions, and criticism of the statements, and criticism of the restatements, and criticism of the criticism, ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

    Yes, we have a subforum titled FREE THOUGHTS for opinions, jokes and wise-ass remarks. That one isn't moderated heavily; we just look out for racism, personal insults, advertising, pornography links, etc. But everywhere else, we should remember that we're here to show ourselves off as scientists and scholars, or at least wannabee scientists and scholars here to learn from the experts.

    This thread does not qualify, and it should be cesspooled. If in 2012 Tiassa had had the foresight to launch it in the Free Thoughts subforum, it might not be such a problem. But he was so naïve as to believe that the members of SciForums would treat this as the important issue it is, and discuss it objectively, like scientists and scholars.

    He should have known better.

    I've met a couple of people whose lives have been so unbearable that they wish they had been aborted. They had dire physical problems which, back in those days (the 1940s and 50s), could not be foreseen in utero. Today many of those things can be caught, giving the parents the option of abortion.

    One of these people could not raise one of his hands. You're as insensitive as you are clueless. Oh wait, that's the definition of "religious," isn't it?
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Mod Hat — The obvious points

    Mod Hat — The obvious points

    This is what the Administration chooses.

    • • •​

    The Moderator is answering a moderation issue as a moderator. It is the Administration's choice to split this discussion into five pieces, including carrying out the discussion in this thread. Given the Administration's insistent dishonesty, it seems ths obfuscation is the point of doing so

    I would also recommend the Administration post its response at LPB/15, which expresses that a speculation was exactly right. Given that the question is repeatedly asked how the Administration knows what LG was thinking (look at assumptions declared as fact in that analysis), it would also be to the Administration's benefit to post the direct response to that question.

    Given the extraordinary nature of the claims, it would probably be helpful (and would have been days ago) if the Administration actually answered that question.

    After all, the heart of the Administration's argument is on the record, and what it doesn't address in order to promote speculation as fact is how #1065 is so unclear that one could only think it referred to the blowjob comment.

    That is to say, given the five statements listed and linked at the outset, and the statement that "he's now down to repeatedly accusing a woman of hysteria in order to avoid answering the issue", the Administration's argument was extraordinary from the outset.

    Furthermore, we might consider Iceaura's posts on this subject—especially #1204—which remind of LG's history of deflection, evasion, and belligerence. How LG's consistent behavioral pattern becomes a fundamental component of the presumption of innocence, instead of evidence to overcome that presumption, is a point the Administration has yet to explain. Right now, the nearest thing we have is a tacit suggestion that recidivism is evidence of innocence: It is so because the Administration says it is so.

    The entire defense of LG rests on extraordinary assertions. The affirmative evidence lacking in that defense includes even the mundane. The Administration has chosen to hold presuppositions as fact, and either cannot or simply will not, answer the obvious questions arising in consideration of that defense.
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    That's just a repeat of what you've said before. I've already responded.
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yeah, I know. You've been answering questions, and my post was a comment on your answers. They make no sense. They seem to be missives from some alternate reality.

    Such as this beauty worthy of LG himself:
    Once again, as above: James, I posted the the stuff I was referring to immediately before referring to it in the very paragraph you got the quoted term from, it's right here on this thread anyway, "many months" were not involved, and you post that shit, that pose of utter cluelessness. How stupidly illiterate am I supposed to assume you are, in order to "understand" your position there?

    Or this:
    You still, after all this, have no clue what LG has been doing on this forum for his entire tenure here. You read his posts, right in front of you, a whole string of them, and can't see what he's up to even when it is pointed out and labeled and quoted in evidence.

    Have you noticed that poor confused LG has often taken a sentence or two in his posts to accurately forestall and wrongfoot the obvious responses to his incoherencies and rhetorical tactics? A blind squirrel will find an acorn once in a while, true, but - - - -

    We've read them. We read them when LG posted them, in one of his typical sequences of setup, insult, and if called on it dissembling and denial coupled with attack on the caller; in this case a targeted sexual insult aimed at Bells.

    It ain't rocket science - for starters, the word "hysteria" was not a plausible term to apply to any of Bells' posting, so ask yourself why he used it.

    You're the only reason anyone has to continue to discuss LG's posting here. You are apparently incapable of recognizing a thug when you see one, which perhaps explains why you occasionally borrow his tactics, and trying to find a way remake an obvious and long-made case to somebody as deaf as you present yourself to be is what is taking all this bandwidth.

    Bullshit. He's known what he was doing all along, and if you missed that you can find it easily - I wasted a couple of posts quoting and highlighting a couple of the more obvious pointers, on this thread alone.
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Ah well, iceaura. I guess I'm just crazy. It's a good thing I only get one vote among the moderators on this issue, seeing as I make no sense and all.

    Over the past week, I've been doing a lot of going back over people's posts and demonstrating to them what they said and when they said it. I'm kind of tired of it, so I'm not going to bother here.

    I'm fully aware of the various tactics LG has used in his posts when debating other people. I said that in my last post to you.

    But ok, you win. I have no clue. What does it matter, anyway? I only get one vote.

    I mean, you're not sounding like you're willing to listen to any alternative argument. You were right there, backing up Bells and Tiassa during the offending thread. You're so close to this you can't see the wood for the trees. I don't expect to change your mind on any of this, any more than I expect to change Tiassa's mind.

    Besides, who'd listen to a guy who obviously has no clue? Why bother even responding to a guy like that? Eh?

    It couldn't possibly be that I'm seeing things here far more clearly than you do, could it? No way, mate.

    A targeted assault, no doubt. A sexual one? Not so sure.

    And let's all ignore the assaults from the other side of the argument that led to all this. We'd better not touch those or people will really get upset.

    I've done this one already:

    hysterical (adj.): Marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion​

    You really have no idea why lightgigantic might have used that term? Ok. It's clear that it couldn't plausibly fit any of Bell's posts in the thread. Isn't it? Only an idiot like myself could possibly entertain that thought. After all, the record speaks for itself.


    And a damn good thing it is that somebody is willing to stand up for what is right and fair.

    You don't like lightgigantic. I get it. You want him banned. I get that, too. Join the crowd. I'm an administrator here. That means the buck stops with me. I don't have the same luxury that you do to call for people's heads without having to be ultimately responsible.

    Well, who knows with crazy people like me? We don't know our shoes from our noses, let alone being able to recognise thugs. You might be a thug yourself, iceaura. Who knows? Not crazy old me.

    Thanks for your input on this, though. You've really added value here.
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You are under no obligation to respect James's choice. As he pointed out, he only gets one vote. If you restrict your comments to the thread on this subject in the Moderators' subforum, I doubt very much that he's going to move it back here.

    I'd say you're in no position to be criticizing the tactics and choices of other moderators. The fact that this river of crap has gotten so long while containing so little actual discussion is largely your fault for not noticing that it is basically a playground squabble that is not worthy of this website--even given our low standards.

    It is still not too late to lock it and move it to the Cesspool. Why are you not doing that? It is an embarrassment to SciForums. As I asked earlier, do you really want someone who googles "abortion" to be led to this thread, and be given the impression that this is typical of SciForums??? I'd just as soon take it out with a blowtorch.

    As for LG, I have no opinion on his status because I haven't read enough of his posts to form one. However, we all make mistakes. If his banning turns out to be one, it's little consquence in his life or the world of science. If he begs politely and maturely to be admitted back to the forum, we can discuss it in private at that time.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page