Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Michael, Dec 28, 2009.

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


    to elicit exactly this kind of response
    so what if you quoted it in whole?
    what is pertinent is how you chose to interpret it
    you quote mined to present it in the most hateful light possible did you not?

    remember you were giving me a lesson in grammar and sneering at my grasp of english a little while ago

    whats your goddamn excuse again?

    /sneers back
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned


    crying us a river again, eh bells?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    I would suggest that you keep out of it. It is none of your business. My comments pertain to what was said in this and other threads that you do not have access to. So, to put it bluntly, fuck off.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

  8. Bells Staff Member

    What makes you think that Tiassa has "stepped off Baron Max" or ignores him?

    What gave you that impression?


    Why don't you actually say what you did try to do, Tiassa?
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    An unfortunate theme

    And you continue to lie, Bells. I originally accused you of dishonesty because instead of responding to my point as presented, you refashioned it in order to be accusatory.

    My original statement:

    Internet addiction has nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that S.A.M. doesn't behave much differently from many other people around here. Better, in some cases. What makes her stand out are two things: (1) She is prolific; (2) she starts from a different perspective and thus often draws different conclusions. That latter is what drives people nuts. If she maintained her posting style and switched her outcomes to pro-American, Christian-centered jingoism, most of her detractors would celebrate her, and her posts would be considered valuable enough to offer her specific protection from the rules, as has been done for other people in the past.​

    And your response:

    " *Sniff*..

    What is that smell I smell..?

    Ah yes..


    If she "switched her outcomes to pro-American, Christian-centered jingoism", she would be Sandy or Buffalo. And we all know just how big of a supporter you are of those two. We both know that you would be running rabid, demanding she be banned for the very type of behaviour that she has been exhibiting of late. Just as you have demanded others of that view be banned in the past, present and, I expect, the future.

    You dodged the point in order to accuse me. I consider the transformation of my argument for that purpose dishonest.

    Again, you're being dishonest. Our rules of conduct prohibited me from making that argument for most of those pages, and you know it. We now have the thread partially available for view, and if people disagree with the summaries I have provided. See #430 for an example.

    Show me.

    Again, you lie. I'm ignoring people's assertions? Again, I refer you to #430—

    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"?​

    When Trippy asserted that the issue was borderline, I inquired why the quote had to be manipulated. Upon his request for clarification, I reiterated the above-quoted section, and explained:

    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.​

    Or maybe you're not lying. Maybe you consider direct address of the question to be ignoring it.

    Additionally, we should note that James' response was to simply refer to his now-public post:

    "I invite anybody who is interested to read the posts in the thread linked above. I think the record speaks clearly for itself, and I'm content to stand on what I wrote there."​

    I would ask, then, that you take him up on that, and explain to me how my summary was incorrect.

    In the meantime, I have a problem with the idea that it was a "fucking misunderstanding" when James' indictment relied so heavily on a snipped version of the statement in question.

    You're a lawyer, Bells. Would you accept judgment against your client that ignored three-quarters of the relevant issue?

    And yet you continue.

    I am comfortable with those accusations, as I believe them true. I, also, expected better from you:

    Nice lie, Bells. Let's look at that specifically, shall we?

    Act like the literate, responsible, and reasonable adult you are.

    (Boldface accent added)

    How one acts and what one is do not always match up. I think you're usually literate, responsible, and reasonable. Unfortunately, in this situation, you're not acting like it.

    As I have stated before, I feel the thirty-day ban was retaliatory:

    • Her one-month ban is not entirely arbitrary, though; it's retaliatory. (#32)

    • What troubles me about the action against S.A.M. is ... It was retaliatory. (#277)

    • I feel, given the paucity of your permaban proposal, that the second action was retaliatory. (#430)

    • I am of the opinion, based on the timing and content of his subsequent permaban proposal, that S.A.M.'s thirty-day suspension is retaliatory. (#472)​

    Now, did you just miss that, or do you choose to ignore it because you disagree with it?

    I have also stated my practical concerns:

    Do our members really want moderators and administrators deciding what they mean? Do our members really want us thinking for them? How will you feel about our judgment and assessments when we argue over what you meant by a three-letter conjunction?

    If we apply James' "S.A.M. standard" equally, that is exactly what members should expect. We literally argued about the meaning of the conjunction "for".

    To the other, I do wonder whether other members, aside from S.A.M., will be treated that way at the outset. When you quote a sentence and then make an assertion which can only be true if you erase half of the sentence?

    This is the new, "fair" standard members should expect. And my dissent from this administration and some of my fellows in this matter, even when we remove S.A.M. herself from the equation, stands quite squarely on my objection to this manner of application.​

    And again:

    Perhaps more important is the practical implication. If we're truly to be fair, as one of my colleagues suggested this action against S.A.M. is, we're going to have to apply this sort of scrutiny to everyone.

    One of the problems with this should be quite clear: Not everyone writes to the same degree of literacy.​

    And in some detail for James:

    But I'm more concerned with the fact that, as a moderator here, I'm obliged to strive to be as fair as possible, a duty you seem to have forsaken. Additionally, had you actually paid any attention to my earlier posts, you might have realized that I also have practical concerns about the implications of the standards you've invoked against S.A.M.

    Frankly, there's not much we can do to get out of the hole you've dug without looking pretty filthy.

    With your complaint about S.A.M.'s "lie", you have opened any assessment of the implications of a member's assertion to disciplinary for lying about someone. Take a look around Politics sometime. There's a lot of argument that revolves around implications. All of that is now subject to disciplinary action, and if we're going to be fair about this standard, you've just dumped a mountain of new work on the WE&P team. And if you think that won't make us look bad in the long run, have Madanthonywayne write you a new prescription against myopia.

    With your assessment of S.A.M.'s threat, you have created a situation in which we are applying ridiculous scrutiny to posts, again inflating the workload by orders of magnitude. At least, if we intend to be fair.

    Do you actually care about that? Because especially in high-traffic subfora like Politics and Religion, some—and possibly many—of those offenses will be missed. Moderators are human. There's only so much they can catch. And the result is going to be a flurry of complaints about people's "lies" or "threats", or about a moderator's "bias". You opened a major artery with this one, and if that's how it's going to go, that's how it's going to go. But I sincerely doubt that's how it's going to go.

    I put a very simple example in front of the moderators, and while I won't fault Ben for doing so, his response was an effective scaling back of the standard. I don't fault him for that scaling back because I agree that we simply cannot maintain, with the current staff and such vague guidelines for these new standards, consistent enforcement.​

    And again for James:

    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 in my discussion with Liebling:

    If we presume, as others do, that the action against S.A.M. is fair—and, yes, I recognize your statement disagreeing with the action, but the standing official condition is that this is fair—I find it coincidental to say the least that we're finally addressing certain issues on an occasion in which we hang it on S.A.M.; additionally, I expect that the precedent set by these standards will create such severe practical problems that, once it's not S.A.M., we'll have to scrap it.

    The ... uh ... appearance of coincidence, as such, would bother me tremendously. But the damage would be done.

    We have only one way forward, which is universal enforcement against attacking the implications of people's words and actions, and the application of similar scrutiny to statements claimed to be controversial.

    I think both of those tasks will prove too much for this staff to fulfill.​

    Again, is this something you missed, or do you choose to ignore it because you disagree with it?

    I have already explained and reiterated my assertion of that manipulation. Did you miss that, or do you choose to ignore it because you disagree with it?

    In #75, I asked:

    With a moderator action clearly and consistently documented in three separate places, at least two of which James acknowledged seeing, how, exactly, could there be any "confusion"?​

    You responded, in #77:

    "Why should I bother? I apparently lack the reading comprehension and understanding to be able to give a cohesive answer.

    Looking at what occured, yes, there obviously was confusion, as others have stated in that particular thread. Different perceptions..

    Unless the rest of us are completely incompetent?

    It's an answer, to be certain. But it's not much of one, and it dodges any explanation of how that "confusion" occurred. Indeed, you simply reasserted that there was confusion.

    Well, unless you call lying respectful, sure.

    I have accused you based on your actions. You have told me to step back and look at it again and see what you see.

    What respect do I owe that emotionally-driven, unscientific, bigoted rant complaining about violations of the scientific method?

    And, additionally, I did follow that up with a post in which I admitted that I was being harsh, and attempted to explain my reasons. Did you miss that, Bells? Or are you ignoring that because you disagree with it?

    That's certainly easier than putting up a real argument, isn't it?

    I refer you to the opening segment of this post, in which I discuss that very issue.

    And to what are you referring this time?

    Feel better for that?
  10. Bells Staff Member

    You are unbelievable!

    You know damn well that if Sam did swing to the right and spout pro-American bullshit, she would be Sandy or Buffalo and you would be demanding she be sanctioned or banned. That you call me a liar on a known fact of your own behaviour and actions when it comes to those who are of the opposite political leanings to your own is ridiculous.

    I didn't twist your words. I applied them directly.

    You just don't like it that the very standard you have accused James of having has been applied by you against others on this forum for a hell of a long time.

    You should be thankful the thread was edited so that everyone could not see all that was said in that thread. And you should be lucky that our rules of conduct are as they are because they also afford you the protection you really do not deserve at this point.

    You mean the part where he admitted his error and lifted the ban immediately? You mean the part where it was such a blatant and obvious misunderstanding and manner of interpretation, which he admitted and rectified? You mean the part where he has afforded you the patience and manners you frankly do not deserve after what you have done and accused him of?

    Read the whole thread.

    You are ignoring the whole issue because you refuse to look at it from both sides. You accuse anyone who dares disagree with you about Sam, of bigotry and racism. Your perceptions of Sam are your own. Others who have had to deal with her over the years have noticed the change to her posts. Her obsessions and her sometimes hateful posts. Those assertions stand true to them and you have ignored and disregarded them and called anyone who voiced concern or anger bigots and racists. You have treated anyone who dared to disagree with Sam with such disdain and disrespect that you had failed to actually look at what they were protesting about.

    My God. He realised his mistake and acted immediately to rectify it. How long can you keep beating the same dead horse?

    When I read through that thread the first time, I could see why he thought as he did. It would be easy to. It was clearly a matter of interpretation, and yet, you seem to refuse to accept that. I wonder, if it had been Baron and not Sam who was in the middle of this, whether we would even be having this conversation.

    I have become as anal as you have.

    Of course you do. Everyone knows you are comfortable with those accusations. The contempt you have shown towards others on this issue has been shining out of your arse for the last two weeks now. WE KNOW you are comfortable with the accusations. Hence my reasons for what has subsequently occured. I cannot continue because you are so comfortable with those accusations.

    And nice attempt to back away from it. As you said above, you are comfortable with the accusations you have made.

    As retaliatory as what you attempted to do afterwards?

    I don't think it was. In that we disagree.. again..

    Did you miss the part where I said I disagreed with your assumption?

    Considering how often you have demanded so many on this forum be banned because they disagree with your political and social leanings, because they do not think as you do.. isn't that a bit rich of you?

    And I replied, to which you responded by calling me a liar and dishonest. What more do you want me to say? Anyone who disagrees with your actions is a liar or dishonest.

    He wasn't the only one who was confused, as was clearly noted in that thread. Did you expect him to complete an anally retentive search? Just because you disagree that getting confused is possible, does not mean that it is impossible. It may have been cited in 3 different places but it is quite conceivable that he did not sift through everything to find those 3 different places.

    Again with that accusation Tiassa.. *sigh*..

    Because anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, right?

    What actions are they Tiassa? Disagree with you? Find what you are doing to be morally reprehensible and vomit inducing?

    Oh wait, I forget, anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, right?

    And your response was not an "emotionally-driven, unscientific, bigoted rant"?

    Oh no, I saw it. You said you were harsh and explained your reasons in a manner to ensure that the insult was carried further.

    Do you remember what I told you after both of your rants in your response to him?

    You are too emotionally connected to this and should have taken a step back and taken a break. Your actions in this thread and others provese that. You have burned so many bridges that nothing will ever repair the damage you have done or the friendships you have lost over this.

    It is all that you deserve.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Because Mommy says so?

    Even if I accept that explanation, you still dodged the question in order to attack.

    And, obviously, I reject that explanation.

    Substantiate that.

    I'm not afraid of my response to that screed.

    Changing the subject, Bells? Good one. Real honest.

    Very well:

    James R: Actually, the two incidents with SAM are completely unrelated. The whole death threat thing is a sideshow to the main game here.

    Tiassa: I don't think so. I feel, given the paucity of your permaban proposal, that the second action was retaliatory.

    Bells: Really? You're going down that route? You?

    Refer to above what I said about hypocrisy.

    Tiassa: As I told James, had he made an honest and rational argument, we could have been done with this a long time ago.

    Bells: He had made a rational and honest argument.

    Tiassa: Show me.

    Bells: You mean the part where he admitted his error and lifted the ban immediately? You mean the part where it was such a blatant and obvious misunderstanding and manner of interpretation, which he admitted and rectified? You mean the part where he has afforded you the patience and manners you frankly do not deserve after what you have done and accused him of?

    Read the whole thread.

    I find that last line somewhat ironic, all things considered.

    What case is it to look at? Why is it my job to think for other people? Why can they not state their case for themselves? Why do I just have to look at it "objectively" and see what they see?

    Seriously, because others don't want to make a case, I'm ignoring the whole issue?


    No. Immediately would have been in response to the protest, without the dishonest defense. It was only when he was cornered about the rest of the sentence and we were nitpicking three and four-letter words that he corrected his error.

    We obviously have different definitions of "immediately".

    Yes, which is why I've long given him more leeway than others, and stated my conflict of interest instead of tried to deny it.

    If that's how you want to look at it. But if you're being anal, how did you fuck up the part noted above, when you told me to read the whole thread?

    Well, at least we can agree on something.

    It's at least slightly more complex than that. Initially, I just hold people's behavior in contempt. Eventually, though, if someone persists with such behavior, it starts to reflect on them as a person.

    I feel I have the facts on my side. You're arguing more emotion than fact.

    Yes, dear. Pointing out that I called you a literate, responsible, and reasonable adult is backing away from it.

    Oh, yes. Redress of grievances is so retaliatory.

    Did you miss the part where your "answer" failed to address the question?

    You mean like when I objected to open bigotry being described as a valuable contribution to the community? Or demanded of my colleagues why they were only moderating one side of an argument?

    Yes, just because they disagree with me, Bells. There's no other possibility, is there?

    To which occasion are you referring? Really, if you're referring to my explanation of how I perceived the manipulation, I see no substantial response. You're very adept at telling me what you think and feel, but so far there's not a whole lot as to why.

    Wow, I've heard that one so many times over the years. Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the basis and explanation of disagreement, could it?

    No, Bells. People who insist on falsehood are liars.

    Actually, I expected him to read the whole statement, not simply rely on a quarter of it.

    Given that James made a point of mentioning it—

    "This incident was hard to miss. fellowtraveler posted TWO complaint threads. Tiassa posted in at least 3 separate moderator threads about the matter."​

    —I just don't think that excuse holds up. The reason was stated in two of those three threads, and, frankly, I don't think that part of the Ban List requires that much sifting.

    Well, shit, I just went through some of that for you, and it seems you prefer to rage and lash out instead of offer any substantial analysis.

    I'm well aware of how you feel. What you have yet to do is explain why you feel as you do, or how you reach your conclusions. I'm not one of your children, Bells. Don't treat me like one of them: What you say isn't simply true because Mommy says so.

    Disagreement isn't a problem. But people who lie are liars. It's not a difficult definition, you know.

    I would reject "bigoted" at the outset. I'm not the one who condemend S.A.M. for being religious. I'm not the one who limited the possibility of her expressions according to her religion. And I'm certainly not the one who described her in profane, misogynistic terminology and accused her (without any substantiation) of serious crimes.

    But it was at least slightly emotional. I'm not worried about that. After all, I'm not, as some have suggested before, a robot.

    I don't know, Bells. Are S.A.M.'s detractors the only ones allowed to be frustrated?

    I would ask you to demonstrate that according to the record.

    Looking at it right now. Too bad you didn't "look at it from both sides" back then. I don't feel it improper to be offended by that screed.

    I am too emotionally connected to this? Well, okay, perhaps you have a point. After all, in addition to the fact I feel this action is unfair, I'm also very concerned about the implications toward what has been, for over a decade, my online home.

    Well, as some of my colleagues have reminded me, it's only a website.

    To the other, though, does friendship mean one should let lies stand unchallenged? Does friendship mean one should stand by in the face of perceived corruption and do nothing?

    And to yet another, when I stop to think of friends, I think of enduring friendships that have spanned thousands of miles and over a score of years, and, yes, I can remember some truly bitter fights.

    I can live with that. It's better than what you deserve.
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    whoa, wait a minute here.
    me and spurious had a number of PMs about what spurious was going to do to get banned and i begged him not to do it.

    spurious canned his own ass.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    I do not believe I did. I responded after staying silent on the issue for a long while. You knew exactly how I would have responded.

    Of course you did. Because you disagreed with what I had to say.

    Ah, the very rules that govern you about the mod forums still govern me as well.

    It is not just your responses. It is also the responses of others who stated that a misunderstanding and misinterpretation had occured.

    The subject where you accused him of lying? The subject where you insinuated that he is the type of person to go back and edit threads and posts to hide anything?

    You cannot look at this objectively because you are too emotionally vested in it. You are as biased as you accuse others of being.

    So you admit that he corrected his error? You admit that he realised his mistake and misunderstanding and corrected it? So why keep calling him a liar?

    It occured within a 24 hour period. Considering the time differences on this forum, one can say it was immediately.

    You actually think we would have been having this conversation if it was Baron or Buffalo instead of Sam? Right..

    You have not given more leeway. You were just told no when you tried to act or wanted to act on your conflict of interest.

    How is it a fuck up to ask you to read it? The answers are there. You just don't want to see or recognise them because you disagree with them.

    It is not something you should be proud of.

    Ironic really, given the circumstances.

    Yes Tiassa. Whatever you say.

    Don't backtrack Tiassa. It is not a good look. The implications of your word were true and clear. So were the meanings. You may consider me incompetent, but I can read and I do understand exactly what you were trying to convey.


    The fact that they were not moderating only one side of the argument escaped you, didn't it? How many other members were banned from this site for their interaction with Sam?

    All deserved and warranted. But you seem to ignore that others have been banned when interacting with her because of how they interacted with her. It is not one-sided. You statement is tantamount to accusing your colleagues as being biased when it comes to Sam, when you know for a fact that they have banned others for the very behaviour she has also been sanctioned for in the past.

    You called me a liar because you disagreed with what I was saying. You accused me of manipulating the situation. You admit it and then ask me to which occasion I am referring?

    You did the same to Liebling when you questioned her honesty. Anyone who dares question you about your actions is dishonest. Something I find quite unbelievable.

    It was a mistake Tiassa. A mistake. You are obsessively holding onto the 'liar liar pants on fire argument' as if it is a lifeline to a drowning man. A misunderstanding and a mistake does not equal lying.

    So because he didn't, he is a liar? This is basically what you have been saying. He didn't live up to your expectations. Suck it up sunshine and move on. You had made your point. He accepted his mistake and corrected it. And instead of letting it go, you drag it on and on and on, making the same accusations when there is no evidence that he lied. The other accusations you threw at him are just as bad.

    So because you disagree with his "excuse", it automatically makes him a liar? If it was someone you hated, you would not have said a single word.

    This coming from you at this point is laughable at best.

    If you were my child, I would not have walked away as I have done.

    I believe I have explained myself quite fully. But of course, you disagree with it and frankly, your words are in no way an inducement to make me want to stay. Quite the opposite.

    Disagreement is the problem here. Why? Because people are disagreeing with you and are thus accused of lacking in honesty and lying.

    Your response to his post was just as disgusting as his post was about Sam.
    That is what you are not seeing. In your response, you lowered yourself to his standard in a manner that was, quite honestly, beneath you.

    You may not think that you do not describe her in the vile manner he did, but you also continue to do her a disservice by attempting to use her sex, religion and ethnicity as a weapon against her detractors, as an excuse for her behaviour. And in that, you are also misogynistic. Just as her detractors use her religion and ethnicity as a weapon against her, you attempt to use it as a weapon to defend her. Instead of looking at her as an individual, you have demanded that we look at her as a Muslim Indian woman first and foremost, all while demanding that her detractors not look at her as such.

    No. But when you lower yourself to the level of her detractors, you become just as bad as they are.

    A true friend would not accuse another friend of lying when it is a mistake. Sometimes, some things are said that are so bad that it ensures there can never be a recovery. And that is exactly what has happened this time. Some lines should never be crossed, no matter how great the friendship might be. And the lines have been crossed.

    Goodbye Tiassa.
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    This is probably the best truest statement made thus far but Sam also uses her race and religion as a card to explain why she is opposed or disliked when it suits her.
  15. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Now who's being dishonest;

  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Man, I hate it when Mom and Dad fight.

    /channels gustav
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Too bad you refused to explain how you didn't.

    Very well. So are you going to apologize for lying about me with that accusation of hypocrisy

    "A bit rich, don't you think? We have gone 25 or so pages in this thread alone with you demanding the very thing you are accusing me and others of."​

    —or what sanction do you think you should face under a fair application of the rules for that lie?

    Well, let's review here:

    Tiassa: Seriously: What about: "Look at this and see what I see" constitutes a rational argument?

    Bells: A bit rich, don't you think? We have gone 25 or so pages in this thread alone with you demanding the very thing you are accusing me and others of.

    Tiassa: Again, you're being dishonest. Our rules of conduct prohibited me from making that argument for most of those pages, and you know it. We now have the thread partially available for view, and if people disagree with the summaries I have provided. See #430 for an example.

    Bells: You should be thankful the thread was edited so that everyone could not see all that was said in that thread. And you should be lucky that our rules of conduct are as they are because they also afford you the protection you really do not deserve at this point.

    Tiassa: I'm not afraid of my response to that screed.

    Bells: It is not just your responses. It is also the responses of others who stated that a misunderstanding and misinterpretation had occured.

    At #507, you are very focused on me. I should be thankful. I should be lucky. Why should I be thankful or lucky that other people's posts—namely that notorious rant by our colleague—aren't included?

    I feel as if you are, once again, changing the subject.

    Actually, Bells, instead of piling on more emotionally-driven accusations, you might want to take your own advice and read the thread. The excerpts I included in my prior response show an exchange in which you first challenged me about my opinion of James' permaban proposal, and then, in the face of having to demonstrate your claim of his rational and honest argument, changed the subject to the three-day ban. That's intellectually dishonest, Bells.

    Ah, yes. I think I'm familiar with this one. Other people have no need to make their case because I should just see what they see.

    I consider that intellectually dishonest, Bells.

    Because his dishonest analysis of S.A.M.'s statement was not the only lie I've accused him of, Bells. If you actually paid attention to what I've been writing, you would recognize that.

    Ah, I see. So because of the time frame, his attempts to justify himself don't count for anything? As I said previously: Immediately would have been in response to the protest, without the dishonest defense.

    But I can see how you prefer the relative definition of immediately that is more convenient to your tantrum.

    It's entirely possible. Had someone posted two bitch threads in EM&J about something Max or Mr. Roam allegedly said in World Events?

    Actually, I have, Bells. There are plenty of times since the Avatar riot that I could have sent Max on short vacations, and didn't.

    Additionally—and I really don't know the answer to this question—do Australian lawyers use the term "test case"? In testing James' standard, I deliberately abstained from my own vote—specifically because of that conflict of interest.

    Because a reading of the thread supports my argument, not yours, Bells. Specifically, it shows how you changed the subject in response to a challenge to demonstrate your assertion. We started out with the permaban proposal, and we ended with you telling me to read the whole thread after making a very emphatic point about the three-day ban.

    Given the intellectual dishonesty you're displaying, Bells, there's really only one thing to say: (chortle!)

    That's the best you can come up with? O-tay!

    The words are on the record.

    And your emotional arguments are proving so reliable, aren't they, Bells?

    Well, you should try putting up a real argument instead of throwing a tantrum.

    Are you suggesting that the fact that some people were sanctioned ... what? Blatant and obvious violations of the rules were condoned when it was a well-known troll attempting to goad and inflame by attacking Muslims. Does the fact that someone else entirely was sanctioned make that sort of thing unimportant?

    In Seattle, at WTO '99, a bunch of Anarchists went on a vandalism spree. The police were nowhere to be found, leaving other protesters to fight with the Anarchists and attempt to stop the destruction. Does the fact that other people entirely were arrested mean the police somehow handled the Anarchists and their vandalism?

    So you can provide a link to the Liebling accusation, but not your own?

    And as to that accusation, it was a very disingenuous response. She claimed it was unfair and dishonest of me to want to know how James reached his conclusion. I provided an example and explained, "That tells me what James perceives, but not how or why." I then asked if she would "claim that it is an impossible request that one should explain how or why they perceive what they do". Her response evaded the question:

    "I'm not James, so I am not sure what you were referring to in my response. I can't explain why anyone other than me, perceives something they way they do. That would be presumptuous, and I don't like making presumptions about other peoples feelings and/or perceptions."​

    That response has nothing to do with the question of whether it is an impossible request that one should explain how or why they perceive what they do. It's a dodge, Bells. That's dishonest.

    Then why won't anyone answer the question of how that "mistake" occurred? It's quite clear, when we review the record: James considered only half the sentence in question, approximately one quarter of the total statement. And he insisted on that analysis until the part he was omitting was put in boldface. Go back to James' second response in the no confidence thread. I told him I didn't see the threat, and stated that if it wasn't S.A.M., I don't think he would, either. His response? "Nonsense. What could be clearer than 'I will chop your head'?" In other words, what could be more clear than the snipped version.

    At that point he is insisting on the manipulated form, omitting half the sentence and three-quarters of the total statement. This insistence undermines the idea that it was just a mistake.

    You know, you keep making accusations, but you haven't the decency to support them.

    Changing the subject yet again. It's your excuse—

    "Just because you disagree that getting confused is possible, does not mean that it is impossible. It may have been cited in 3 different places but it is quite conceivable that he did not sift through everything to find those 3 different places."​

    —that doesn't hold up. I've even told you why. And you just want to keep changing the subject and accusing. Perhaps you think that's an honest, rational argument, but I don't.

    At this point, you're just speculating and throwing whatever you can think of.

    So where are your facts, Bells? You asked me for what's already on the record.

    Well, I'm glad of that. But it's beside the point. I'm referring to your unsupported, emotionally-driven accusations.

    You have indeed explained what you think and feel quite fully. But there's nothing in there to establish why you think and feel what you do, or how you come to those conclusions. You're not supporting the problem.

    Again, I'm not one of your children. I don't have to accept what you say just because Mommy says so. The fact that you say so does not automatically make something true, Bells. And you're not supporting your arguments.

    Again, what respect did I owe that bigoted rant?

    Did I condemn his atheism? Did I restrict the possibility of his expression to a prejudged outlook on atheism? Did I use profane, sex-based insults? Did I accuse him, without substantiation, of crimes?

    So let me get this straight: Because I object to people using her sex against her, I'm misogynistic?

    That's a new one.

    Yes, Mommy. Whatever you say, Mommy.

    I have repeatedly refuted the "mistake" assertion, and yet you continue to push it. As I recall, one of S.A.M.'s alleged offenses is this sort of intellectual dishonesty.

    Then maybe it's for the best, because irreconcilable liars don't make for good friends.

  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    /rolling on the goddamn floor laughing my ass off

    and you said she is a lawyer?

    at the very least can i offer a shoulder? a hanky?
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2010
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    lets draw pictures...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    i say! wtf?
  20. otheadp Banned Banned


    I wonder how much this discussion here is a microcosm of real-life political discussions, you know, over things that actually matter, like policy affecting at the least hundreds of thousands of people, or even millions, when you fight over budgets, and prioritize things like healthcare over education...

    I bet it's very similar.
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I've already explained how I interpreted it and why. This is beating a dead horse.
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    THE DRAMA, THE DRAMA! Yes I agree I bet it's just as asinine as this.
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Tell me something, is it still dishonest if James explicitly aknowledged in the post in question (the one that you've captured) that there were sections excluded it? Or is it the simple act of exclusion that you're lamenting as dishonest.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page