Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Michael, Dec 28, 2009.
Thanks, that was what I thought. I fully agree with her 1 month ban.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
This is exactly how I feel about it.
For the record, I feel the same about James R. I think both parties have handled the whole thing poorly and dishonestly.
The bottom line for me, is that S.A.M. has been trolling and on the attack on these boards for a very long time. Her methods of debate are despicable, just like Baron's and Buffalo's. Honestly, I don't know why any of them have had carte blanche for so long. It's one thing to disagree, but it's another to subterfuge perfectly reasonable dialog with dishonest practice and unethical debate tactics. But being unbiased means you can see both sides. In this case, it hasn't been done ON EITHER SIDE. But causing this kind of uproar in the open forums when it should have been handled elsewhere is a drama this forum really doesn't need. Talk about adding fuel to an already smoldering fire. Drama for drama sake, go us.
Something about hypocrisy, Bells?
Why is it that you, and others, can tell me what you think and feel, but nobody is willing to put a rat's ass worth of effort into telling me or anyone else why? Is it too much effort to explain what is apparently so goddamn obvious?
Seriously: What about: "Look at this and see what I see" constitutes a rational argument?
As I told James, had he made an honest and rational argument, we could have been done with this a long time ago.
Or is it that you don't care?
Act like the literate, responsible, and reasonable adult you are. Don't just tell people to "read her posts objectively"; that's just a cheap excuse for not having to explain anything. Understand that not everyone agrees with you. Understand that some people will actually pay attention to what things say, and not sit back in bigoted comfort with no apparent understanding of what is going on.
You might have lost your patience, but I've lost a lot of respect for you. I can't believe you're actually advocating dishonesty, bigotry, and intellectual sloth.
And I think you should keep in mind, in the first place, that James was arguing a manipulated version of the quote and, to the other, that not all of his lies have to do with his deliberate manipulation of S.A.M.'s words.
Additionally, I asked you a direct question pertaining to your defense of James' action and position a while ago, and you have thus far refused to answer. If I missed something, by all means point it out; but, surveying again your posts in this thread, I don't see an answer.
And if you are going to be so irrational or disrespectful, Bells, that you can't or won't answer the question, why should I care what you have to say?
Well, let's see: You altered the subject of my statement in order to attack me. And you claimed the rules are being enforced fairly by invoking a unique standard against S.A.M. Neither of those acts represent honesty. Sorry if your ego is bruised, but I've had enough of this hypocritical lip service to the scientific method and all that bullshit when basic explantions are too much to ask.
• • •
If it was so borderline, why did James have to manipulate the quote?
• • •
You really want us to be grammar police? Of course, as I've already explained my rationale for that, should I really have to go into that again?
Or is there really no point? Look around. I know what people think. What they refuse to explain is how and why. Given that my colleagues wield the "scientific method" like a club, I don't think a rational explanation of how they reach their conclusions should be asking too much.
• • •
Grand conspiracy? What's with the straw man? Plazma explicitly stated his support for your action. I have documented your errors and lies, and that doesn't change his opinion. He's got your back, James. No need for you to be honest or consistent.
I would think abusing your authority and lying to cover your ass would be important insofar as it's conduct unbecoming an authority figure at this site.
And you still won't demonstrate your complaint. Nothing new here.
A couple of ways of looking at this:
• If we apply this standard uniformly and fairly across the board, we will be giving greater scrutiny to posts and complaints than ever before; arguing over three-letter conjunctions and four-letter verbs isn't something we've really had to do before. Furthermore, counting address of implications as lies means there's a lot more "lies" we're going to have to review.
• Or we might wonder if, since nobody is asking us to take on a greater workload, we don't intend to apply these new standards uniformly and fairly across the board?
And no wonder, if you're handling them as poorly as you handled this situation.
I notice you're doing what you can to dismiss the concerns about applying the standards fairly, or the implications of a dishonest administrator.
And you have yet to demonstrate how that definition fits.
It's clear how you feel, as it was in September and in the recent permaban but as to clear explanations of how you reach those conclusions? Nope.
Again, and I don't know why I need to keep repeating this in a place so allegedly dedicated to science and the scientific method: Posting a link or a quote and expecting people to see exactly what you see does not make a good argument in support of your point.
You could have tried honesty at any time, James.
See, I can deal with humor. But when your humor looks just like the rest of your dismissals and evasions, it tends to disappear into the noise.
Oh my gosh... this post by tiassa [http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2454054&postcount=430] is yet another "doozy".
It takes 7 "Page Down" presses to get through it! What is wrong with you!!!
And the latest one (the post above this one) is 5 "Page Down" presses.
Do you really believe people are going to bother to read all that? And even better - to RESPOND to each distortion you put in there? That's how you "win" arguments - by tiring your opponents.
O! horrible literacy!
You're right. Literacy is a scourge to humanity.
Got anything useful?
Didn't think so.
I did. as I have told you more than once.
no arrogance and laziness.
Well when you call me whiny for following the advice YOU GAVE ME I'm going to be more than a little miffed.
more personal attacks on those that have decided to speak out on your abuses of power.
Well considering libel is a offense that is seen in court logic dictates that maybe we treat it to the standards that court require and not your whims.
I have to disagree with the use of for( other words I would have treated the same like because) clearly indicates a if than statement and the only way someone could feel threatened by that statement is if they did what was after the for which in this case was use WP against civilians.
This is an impossible request, and you know it. Unfair and dishonest at it's core since you know for a fact that he can't read every post before it gets moderated, he has no idea what actions have been taken in each and every thread S.A.M. has participated in... not only for the waste of time that would be, and for the shear number of posts per day he would spend having to read.
She walks around here with a sledgehammer, and you think that it's okay for her to do so because she's only hit a few people in the face and we're keeping an eye on her. It's bullshit and now you are just grasping at straws. No one can come up with evidence enough for you, because your standards are impossible to meet, Tiassa. Seriously, I know you are upset but you are asking for something that can't be provided. By you or by him, and you are using that to your advantage to try make him out to be wrong. Right or wrong as he might be, that's patently unfair and dishonest. It pretty clear that you are doing just that.
Evidence for trolling? Come on, T. No one can come up with accurate evidence because we can't all bear witness to 50+ posts a day and aren't that interested to do so. Add to that, the fact that moderators and admins edited her really bad posts and lock and/or discard the ones that cause riots. We can't see all the evidence, so how can we provide it to you?
But even some of her thread titles are inciteful and trolling for arguments. 'Shut Up About the Two State Solution' (both versions locked) numerous polls meant to divide, like "I think theists are insane" "I think blacks are dumb" ... and these are just the threads she's started lately, it says nothing of the vast number of posts that attempt to bash her opinion on other people. She ignores contrary evidence, cites biased news reporting and the way that she words things needs diplomacy. The same can be said for Buffalo, Baron Max, Cheski, and Pjdude... and they've all earned bans for exactly the same thing she is doing and in my opinion, shouldn't be here either.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific here Tiassa, the closest thing i've been able to find to manipulation of the quote was an all too brief synopsis of it which, although it is not strictly speaking 100% accurate, does regain some accuracy when one remembers that at that time JamesR had, rightly or wrongly, interpreted the post as a threat.
A conditional threat is still a threat.
Tell me, if you were dating my daughter, and I took you to one side and said "I will hunt you down and make you wish you were dead for breaking my daughters heart, so don't go doing anything stupid."
Would you feel any less threatened because it's a conditional statement?
well yeah but only because the condition is subjective. In Sam's case it wasn't. it was directly linked to an unsubjecvtive condition. IT amounted to a telling someone they would defend themselves. If I say I would beat the crap out of you for attacking me is that a threat? No Its a statement of my reaction. Which is exactly what SAM did.
This and that
Well, after a dispute with one of my colleagues over the editing of a post, I changed the way I go about the practice. I now preserve a copy of the original, unedited post. As far as I know, I'm the only moderator who does so, and I do so specifically so I can demonstrate what I did and why should a question ever arise.
If the moderation of posts clouds our ability to tell what is going on, perhaps my fellows might consider this approach in order to reduce controversy.
However, I think your point misses something vital about supporting one's assertion. I have presented a reference for you to consider—twice, in fact—and have yet to receive any substantial response. So let us invoke that reference one more time, and I can certainly accommodate your reluctance or inability—whichever—by reiterating the point again. Consider the following accusation:
That tells me what James perceives, but not how or why. You would claim that it is an impossible request that one should explain how or why they perceive what they do?
And then please consider the response:
Obviously, I disagreed with James' accusation. But at least I was willing and able to tell him why I disagreed.
Sorry, but I don't buy the "impossible request" excuse.
It's pretty clear that you'll say anything to avoid treating S.A.M. fairly.
As to edits, I've noted a solution. As to deletions? Hey, James can see them, and read their contents.
Something about reading comprehension goes here. I just don't understand how or why people have become such literalists around here. Apparently what we need is a rule against sarcasm and other rhetorical devices that might confuse some of our ill-lettered neighbors.
Is it an impossible request to ask that you or anyone else back that accusation in the context of my prior response to you?
The one thing I can say that is common between these people is that somewhere, someone doesn't like what they've written. But that's not a very good standard for action. Perhaps subtlety is a tremendous effort for people here, but if we're to be a place of science and objectivity, we owe such issues better attention.
• • •
To reiterate my explanation to James:
I think your subconscious is so infected with your disdain for S.A.M. that you would have given proper attention to the whole of what any other poster had written.
And let me pause here, to pre-empt whatever snide dismissal you might attempt, James, and ask that you return your attention to the no confidence thread, on this occasion posts #2-5, in which we argued over what you were judging. In #3, I accused that you presented a contextually-snipped version of the quote. You responded (#4) that you quoted her post in full. I pointed out (#5) that what you responded to or relied on was the contextually-snipped version. Returning, then, to #2 in order to examine what you actually wrote, you tag-quoted the sentence in full, and immediately presented a snipped version, omitting the second half of the sentence. The subsequent paragraph mentions nothing of the second half of the statement, and makes assertions that are only arguable if that portion never existed. Additionally, in that same post, you responded to my comparative example by only referring to the snipped version. Indeed, the difference you cited was the conditional portion of the comparative example, which is the portion of S.A.M.'s statement you snipped and then refused to acknowledge. Additionally, in post #4, you asked what could be clearer than, well, the snipped version. Your assessment of S.A.M.'s statement consistently omitted the second half of the sentence until I put it in boldface (#5) and said, "There's your condition." And then I pointed out the second sentence in the statement, which I feel made her position very clear.
Would you really have done that to "any other poster"?
The problem is that he judged the statement based on the snipped version. It shouldn't have required the effort it did to get him to pay attention to the rest of the sentence. As far as I can tell from James' explanations, at that time, when he rightly or wrongly interpreted the post as a threat, he was only assessing one half of one sentence, or approximately a quarter of the statement.
I don't think there's any "rightly or wrongly" question about it.
*i will kill you if i find you raping my daughter
*i would kill you if i find you raping my daughter
the qualifier renders the distinction moot and the grammatical error irrelevant
Either way makes sense. If I had a daughter and I found someone raping her, I'd kill em too. Probably slowly though.
Bullshit, your example is irrelevant, grammatically the second example makes no sense unless you change the tense of find to found.
The difference between those two statemnts is the tense, not the mood, which is the other use of would - to denote past tense, however, that's not the issue here.
The issue is the difference between an assertion and a supposition.
i think we can safely infer that anyone that comes here with unsubstantiated accusations is simply trolling. it is their hatred and bigotry they want you to accept without question.
well best you take a hike then, ja. james must be so disappointed if nothing is what you contribute to this discussion
thats all bells got? grow up? that's a devastating argument right there.
once again, bells, bring something substantial to the table or please stop trolling. read posts objectively? well goddamn show us how it is done
i derive meaning and i suspect most would do to if i uttered either version
just not you, trippy. you are special
James was considering the assertion, which is the part that constitutes the threat. In this instance for is acting as a conjunctive, what comes after the for is the conditions under which the preceeding statement will be applied.
The statement, strictly speaking, as it is worded provides an assurance of a specific outcome on the proviso that certain events occur. It is the assurance that constitutes a threat, as I have endeavoured to demonstrate, the fact that the assurance is conditional makes little difference when considering it as a threat or not.
And as I have said several times, I can see where you're coming from, but, I can also see why James initially considered it a threat.
Separate names with a comma.