Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion

parmalee:

Let's start with this:

Well, there's reading through and then there's reading through.

And you did write:

I acknowledge that you read through the posts, but was it a skim read or a thorough going over followed by some thought before you posted a considered reply?

Whichever the case, you wrote that you weren't quite grasping how Sarkus could have been trolling. To me, not quite grasping the content meant that there was room to doubt the validity of the conclusions you reached. So, I queried whether you had, in fact, read the relevant material - I mean properly read it, not just skimmed enough to post your first reaction.

I assume that, by now, you consider that you have a good grasp on the relevant matters. Your initial opinion about whether Sarkus was trolling is, however, unchanged. So be it.

To summarise: I took your word for it that you hadn't grasped the issues - because that's what you said.

Understand?

 

parmalee:

This is clearly a personal attack, in breach of our site posting guidelines. It is entirely inappropriate and rude.

To avoid any accusations of bias, because you are under the impression that you're in some kind of personal battle with me, I will not moderate your post on this occasion. I request, however, that you respect our site posting guidelines in future.

On a personal note, please grow up. You're acting like a petulant child, not entirely unlike Sarkus, whom you apparently support and respect for some reason.

It strikes me as more than a little strange that your first and only post in a thread about abortion was to chime in to support your mate Sarkus in his battle against me. For months, there's nothing from you on this forum, and then - bing! - suddenly you appear to join Gang Sarkus in its crusade against the evil administrator of sciforums.

Maybe it's just a coincidence. Maybe you popped in and saw a fortuitous opportunity to join in a pile on. Maybe some interaction I had with you in the past got you riled up, and that motivated you to this. I don't know.

Whatever it is, you can hardly complain about my complaint that this is just a personal vendetta against me, when the only reason you chimed in was to join Sarkus in exactly that. It's not unjustified paranoia when people are actually out to get you, parmalee.

Of course, you've told some lies now, as well. You've tried to create a straw man, alleging that I have said that the only reason anybody could ever possibly question me was because they want to gang up on me. I have, as you know, said no such thing. You're trying to paint me as somebody who is irrationally paranoid, when you know I am not. That reflects poorly on your character. Why you'd want to ally yourself with Sarkus, of all people, is a bit of a mystery to me. Why sink to his level? My previous opinion of you was that you seemed like a reasonable sort of fellow. Clearly, something I did upset you so much that you are now willing to throw away your reputation here, just as Sarkus has done. And now, you're starting to tell lies, as well. It's a real shame.

It's highly unlikely, in the circumstances. Readers, of course, will judge for themselves.

You're just trying to hurt me. It's not a good look for you.

I have gone on the record many times about what I think this site is and is not.

Does it matter to you whether this is a science site or not?

If it doesn't matter, what are you trying to do? Do you think that disputing that this is a science site will hurt me? You're just looking for ways to get under my skin - just like Sarkus is. Again, I'm puzzled as to why you want to sink to his level. He sets an extraordinarily poor example.

I do find, from time to time, that people get upset when my analysis of their possible motives cuts a little too close to the bone for their liking. The thing is: if somebody wants to make things personal, it's going to go both ways. You can't expect to make a personal attack on somebody else and not have people (including your target) query your motives.

Good. Although, Sarkus said he was done, before, and it turned out he wasn't.

Do you know when to stop, parmalee? I mean, if you can't bring yourself to do the decent thing and apologise, at least don't trash your reputation any further than you already have.

 

So stop. Don't be a hypocrite.

 

Sarkus:

I can stop any time I like. But aren't we having fun?

You can't stop yourself, can you?

Don't play coy with your readers, Sarkus.

You remember our little run-in last year in the crypotcurrency thread, I'm sure. I can't say that's where your grudge started, but it's certainly where it seriously escalated.

Since then, you've been following me around the forum, looking for any opportunity to criticise or take issue with stuff that I write. You're pedantic, nit-picky and aggressive. You want to get in my face at every opportunity. You crave my attention.

As you know, you and I have had a number of minor flare ups over the past few months, usually - but not exclusively - instigated by you.

parmalee's point about passive aggressive behaviour does apply here, but much more to you than to me. You're always looking for excuses to attack me. Your attacks on positions that I take are usually petty and nit-picky. When I call you out for that, your real agenda is always quickly unmasked, as you immediately move in the mode of making direct personal attacks.

These are the facts. You're not fooling anybody. Well, maybe you fooled parmalee and cluelusshusbund, but some other people can see you for what you are.

You're telling me that you'll never be satisfied, because I will always be a hypocrite, according to you. In other words, you're just making another excuse for why you can't and won't stop yourself.

More excuses for why you'll never be satisfied. The truth is, you just don't know how to stop.

I think that, actually, you're unable to recognise when it's appropriate to stop. (Which, now that I think about it, is probably justification for stopping you. I'll think further on that.)

Yes. It is an ongoing demonstration of both your trolling and your inability to control yourself or act like a mature adult. It speaks volumes about your character.

You misunderstood, again. I said you can fool some of the people some of the time [but not all of the people all of the time].

You have managed to fool at least a couple of people here, who have happily taken the opportunity to join you on your bandwagon of hate and recrimination.

I seldom initiate these things. But I do finish them.

You, on the other hand, don't know how or when to stop. I assume that is something you've never understood. You're not much of a people person, are you? (Ooh, look, an ad hominem. But somebody told me those are okay when we're discussing character.)

Indeed.

cluelusshusbund's approach is to send snide personal messages to me and to make a special effort to hit "like" on every post that is suitably anti-James R. It's mostly passive aggressive.

parmalee appeared out of the blue and decided to insert himself into this current debarcle of yours for reasons that remain obscure to me at this point. We'll see if he can make amends for losing his shit, or whether he wants to join your crusade on a more permanent basis, I guess.

How people choose to react in public to things is, as you say, entirely up to them. But public reactions inevitably have consequences on public reputations. So, it's a question of what sort of reputation you want.

You've previously told me, in effect, you don't care how low your reputation goes, here. It's a subsidiary explanation for why you won't stop.

 

I read through those initial posts and I don't see trolling. I just see someone who disagreed with you on some points and was seeking clarification or suggesting you were wrong. It was on topic.

And his questions were valid based on the subject matter and what you had posted.

It is clear that you and Sarkus have a bit (read a shit tonne) of issues with each other. You don't get along. And look, that's fine. We don't all have to get along.

Looking at those initial posts, I don't see the whole vendetta thing. That came along much later because that is what inevitably happens between the two of you. Try and consider or ask yourself if he's disagreeing with you, it's on topic, and he is pointing out something he disagrees with in your post - 'is it because he's out to get me?'.. I don't think he is. But the moment you introduce that element into the discussion, the tone and subject of the disagreement immediately changes. Your first response to him is always on the defensive, and he responds in kind.

The issue is that you are both at fault here. You can't lay this solely at his feet.

Given you both seem to go down this route each time you converse on this site, perhaps it might be healthier for the both of you to not communicate at all and simply ignore each other. Billvon made the pertinent point earlier - if you think he is trolling, why feed it? And I'd ask the same question to Sarkus.. If he thinks you're trolling, why feed it?

God help me, this is now stuck in my head:



I now hate everyone..

 

Randwolf:

Of course. If I wasn't open to criticism, this thread wouldn't be open either.

You have said a lot of entirely reasonable things.

I understand. These personal battles are bruising for the people involved (although Sarkus will no doubt vehemently deny that). Disinterested readers (not uninterested, mind you) often view these things are unnecessary and they are often dismayed about the likely repercussions for future interactions on the forum between the people who are involved. The prosecution of old grudges can spill over into many threads and it always disrupts the flow of constructive discussion.

In most cases, as a moderator, the best thing to do when these things flare up is to issue warnings to the people involved and to shut down the argument. However, when a moderator is involved in the argument, shutting down the discussion or warning the (other) parties who are involved risks simply expanding the dispute to include accusations that the moderator has taken to using his or her official powers as an extra weapon in the personal dispute. Maybe the best solution, in the ideal case, is that another unbiased moderator steps in to handle the matter. In our specific situation here, however, we don't have have many moderators and it is difficult to avoid any perception of collusion or mutual bias among the remaining moderators.

This is why I tend to let these arguments run their course whenever I am involved, rather than moderating to shut them down. Of course, that still leaves the question of why I choose to respond to personal attacks at all, especially when they are repetitive. On that, I can only really say that I'm a human being with the usual human flaws. Also, as I have said previously, I think that letting personal insults and false allegations go unchallenged merely encourages the trolls to repeat and/or escalate their poor behaviours. My preference, for better or worse, is to call them out on their bullshit.

All of the names you have mentioned have a history with me. In some cases, it's entirely positive. In other cases, it's a mix. In a few cases, you're looking at people who have deep-seated grudges and huge chips on their shoulders, usually as a result of my calling out their bad behaviour in the past and them coming out of those past discussions looking quite the worse for wear.

When it comes to these things, there are always some silent supporters (or silent opponents) who prefer to sit out of the fray and just watch what happens. I don't blame anybody who makes the choice not to get involved. I do not require a gang of my own supporters to leap to my defence in a battle against the likes of Sarkus; I can easily handle him on my own. But I am confident that there are people here who understand where I'm coming from and who probably agree with me on the important issues, even if they might regard some of my choices as unproductive.

In this current thread, there has been a lot of passive aggression. As I said in a previous post, that sort of thing can look innocent to a casual viewer while, in fact, the aim of it all along is to push somebody's buttons. Flame wars on forums like this often start with seemingly innocuous comments. Those involved get the subtle messages that are intended (after all, those messages are deliberately targeted for them to get), while outsiders see nothing they regard as objectionable.

Such is the case with this thread, including in Sarkus's opening post. He protests just a bit too much, don't you think?

There are a few usual suspects who do that.

There aren't that many regulars here, these days. Among those who are still here, there are a few who have taken a disliking to me. In some cases, it's because I have been quite critical of some pet ideas they have about various pseudosciences. In some cases it's because they broke our rules at some stage and I issued them with a warning that they considered unfair. Some of those people feel restricted by our site rules and they resent me because they see me as the forum policeman who abuses his powers. In some cases, it's probably just a personality thing: they think I'm an arrogant know-it-all; they don't like my posting style; etc.

Another factor is that, after a while, regulars here can almost predict the kind of thing another regular is likely to say on any given topic. So, they start to lose interest in discussion of topics, many of which have come up before. They decide to provoke controversy or start arguments as an alternative to discussing the topics. Their focus becomes the personalities in the forum rather than the actual topics of discussion. While some people might feel it's a bad look to fight with others in front of a bunch of strangers or visitors, they (somewhat paradoxically) feel comfortable doing it in front of a bunch of people they already feel they know well.

Well, there's no value in Sarkus repetitively blathering on about his issues with me. That's why I moved his nonsense out of the original thread in the first place. I've certainly said everything that needs to be said to him. This will pass soon, but I'm sure he'll be back for another round, because he can't help himself.

Do you think I haven't done that? I've done that right from the start of this little episode. I'm always keeping tabs on my own motives and trying to evaluate how this all comes across to an unbiased reader.

In answer to your questions:
1. My hands are mostly clean. I'm not perfect. On occasion, I like to stir the pot a bit. I'm not always the peacemaker, certainly.
2. Opinions will inevitably differ on whether there is a better way of handling this or that thread. Again, I do not claim to be perfect.
3. See above for some reasons why people feel the way they do.
4. Different people have different patterns. Yes, there are patterns to be seen. Do I care? Certainly I care enough to keep responding in this thread, at least to thoughtful posts. Not on endless repeat, though.

We all give different weight to different people's opinions. There are a few people here whose opinions I value highly. There are a few other people here whose opinions are irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. I don't value the opinions of liars, in particular.

I value your opinion at least enough to take time to think about it and to write this response. As I said at the start, you've made some perfectly valid points. My perspective on this particular thread is clearly going to be somewhat different from yours, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean I can't understand where you're coming from.

 

Plausible deniability.

You will note that I answered all his valid questions in my first reply (post #2) to him.

The main issues I have with Sarkus tend to come up when he is disruptive of normal conversation. Apart from that, I don't think he has any emotional intelligence, but I will be the first to say that I think that might not be something he can fix. I wish he could control his outbursts and know when enough is enough, but maybe he just can't.

Regarding his personal attacks on me, of course I think it is entirely rude and inappropriate when he makes false allegations and generalisations about me. I understand that he can't let go of a long-standing grudge he has about my calling him out for failing to recognise when it is appropriate to declare a vested interest. Maybe that upset him because it tended to highlight his lack of social intelligence. Anyway, whatever the reason, it doesn't justify any of his falsehoods.

However you want to look at where this particular round of recrimination started, you might like to consider why it escalated, who escalated it, and who is unable to let it pass.

What makes you think I didn't consider that?

I answered all his on-topic questions. I even helpfully distinguished his on-topic questions from his off-topic personal attacks. I wrote things like "These are reasonable questions" for the on-topic stuff, and I wrote things like "This is entirely inappropriate" for the off-topic personal bullshit. You know, in case he can't actually tell the difference.

From post #1 of this thread he was on the attack. What do you expect, if not a defence? There are instances where I conceded on-topics points, or else acknowledged the point of view by politely disagreed, as I often do. Of course, we didn't spend very much time discussing the topic, because Sarkus quickly wanted to make it entirely personal.

I do not lay everything entirely at his feet.

I do think, however, that he ought to stop now, if he is able. Don't you? I think he's said his piece three or four times now, at least. Do you think I have understood his message to me? Is there anybody reading this thread who doesn't understand his assertions?

Of course, I'm not going to waste my time trying to defend myself against false allegations. That would tend to give them a false veneer of legitimacy.

That's not a realistic solution. It is inevitable that we will, at times, disagree with one another on some topic or other.

Because letting it pass sends the message to him that his behaviour is acceptable.

 

Sarkus:

Thank you for highlighting that I was correct about this part of the reason for your long-standing grudge.

Clearly, it is not true that this site - this discussion, in fact - is unimportant to you. Your own behaviour belies your words. You lack self awareness.

That is your excuse and justification for your ongoing and quite inappropriate personal attacks. It's wafer thin, but apparently you've convinced some people here. Well done.

I saw your point clearly. I deduced your aims correctly.

...says the guy who in post #12 made a laundry list of my supposed character flaws.

You didn't mean for me to take that personally? Come on, Sarkus. Even you can't be that emotionally disconnected. Can you?

Sarkus, grow up. At times you come across like like a whiney toddler having a supermarket meltdown. You keep going long after you've forgotten why you arced up in the first place.

If you stop posting, there will be nothing for me to reply to. But you can't stop, can you?

Sarkus, your childish "I know you are, but what am I?" ploy isn't working. Think about it. Don't just keep proving me right.

Oh, I see. You're not doing this for the audience, then? Why, then?

Are you hoping to convince me that you were spot on with your extensive laundry list of my character flaws, and trusting that I will be the bigger man and remedy them one by one until they suit your preferences?

Do you feel like you're making useful progress in bringing me around to your point of view?

And why all the repetition? Haven't you said your piece several times over? Do you think I missed your meaning the first seven times, so you need to post exactly the same thing for an eighth time, or a nineth or tenth time, in the hope that eventually you'll break through my wall of incomprehension?

If the optics are fallacious, why on earth are you still posting here, Sarkus?

Is it just because you can't stop yourself?

I doubt very much that you're done. You can't seem to stop.

We'll see, once again.