unacceptable behavior in a poster

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Agree with all of the above. I read threads like "should we ban believers" and I think, how hard is it NOT to click on a link that you have to actually suppress other peoples opinions rather than control yourself from reading and responding?

I'm not sure why we encourage a nanny forum, so that people who whine the most [and have a trigger finger which rarely moves from the report button] are the ones who are paid the most attention.

Thats typical Geoff, insist on an argument whine if you don't participate and complain if you do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You say vamping, I say baseless slander

Which we've discussed. You don't get it - again. I didn't know you were in chemo when I PMed you, and when I found that out, I certainly didn't expect you to comment. Again, you don't seem to understand what's happening around you. I appreciate that a large part of this is probably your recent illness; you really need to think about the timeline in all this.

Now, just for conclusion, the guy was an actual bigot and you weren't concerned about it, ultimately. We've been over the reasons already.

You do not understand. If you misrepresent me in an example, it is absolutely my business, for two reasons: i) your examples slander me, and ii) if your argument is partially based on a complete misread of my comments (the rest being about BR), then I have an interest as a member to ensure an accurate representation of the record before changes get made. There are other questions here: what exactly was the point of Tiassa's soliloquy on the open forum, if his objective was pure reconciliation with James and the re-coalescence of the moderators? Was it not to make a point with the members? I'm a member. It's my business.

Sure, if you like.

Well, we're off that now, aren't we?

And I care that no else protests their misrepresentation because...? I guess I don't care, actually. You're right in that I cannot direct your examples. But if you misrepresent those examples, I might comment - perhaps even acidly. If you misrepresent me, I absofucking will comment, if I catch you at it, and probably quite nastily. If you get very categorical and absolute about such mis-assertion, I may even drop a dime on it to the relevant parties. This is fair warning. Sorry if you don't like the system, but the old one wasn't working in a number of ways, and the new one is well within reasonable regs.

Sorry: not going away. I have a great seat, and an interest in the proceedings.

They do say: speak of the devil, and he shall appear.

Speaking of which:

As hard as it is to admit this, I must actually agree with Sam here. Such threads go too far. There's no need for wholesale suppression.

And, if you're Sam: jump in, throw a few bombs, and gripe of unfairness when you blow your own foot off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One simple question: did you read Tiassa's post or not? The post I responded to. Did you read it? Answer, please.

I also have to ask how this statement -

- jives with the rest of your post. So, the post doesn't concern me - not even as a member? - but it might involve me. How does that work?

This discussion raises the larger question of why you are even posting here. This thread doesn't concern you, Bells. It's not about you. You went into a long rant about some PMs we exchanged: but the thread is not about you, Bells. Please try to stop making everything about you. Okay?

How's that for parity?

 

You must all be mad. He specifically discusses his interpretation of some of my comments and issues involving me. It strains credulity to think that you cannot see that. Again: read his post. I want to at least have some proof that you glanced over the text that involves my comments - and specifically his reading of them. You cannot in honesty tell me that you've forgotten those debates. They happened like a week ago.

Damn right I didn't. If you use me as a straw man, the straw man is going to hit back.

That is an insane reading of this latest discussion, Bells. Do you honestly believe his comments about making a word naughty had nothing to do with me? I'm sorry, but this is impossible to believe.

This is exactly what I'm wondering about you right now. Because you do in fact know what the context of his remarks was:

So you do at least admit obliquely that you do know what I'm griping about. For crying out loud. Was that so hard?

I am discussing Tiassa's comments about the thread. If he, or you, or I want to make a separate thread: fine with me. But don't make sweeping generalizations about the issue that are based on a false reading of some selected examples. So this is about the issues, Bells. If you don't see that, it's not my fault.

Tiassa's comments were about me, and he knows it, and so do you. Tell you what: describe what this issue was about without the examples he gave. Go on.

Nope. My comments are on-topic: Tiassa's examples are specious and maliciously interpreted in one case at the very least and, as such, don't support his perspective.

 

Well, that made perfect sense.

At the very least, it raised no points that could be refuted.

 

And followed up later, by Tiassa, to whom I am responding.

You first. :shrug:

 

This and That

Bells

I will note that there are some issues Geoff raises that I would be happy to address, except that it's futile. For insance, note his focus on me. To the one, yeah, I can see why. To the other—

—he's maintaining a fallacy.

See, in the past, when Geoff has been offered examples of why I have the opinion of his posts that I do, he changes the subject and goes on the attack.

He has examples why I view him as I do; he's ducked them before, and yet he still bawls about it.

Although, you might get a kick out of this. Geoff can't, since he's not privy to the other record, but both of those examples include reference to a particular episode. Now ... consider a recent suspension issued when a member insulted someone on staff. The staffer laid out his complaint, and someone else executed the suspension. I'm pretty sure you know which one I'm talking about. And that's well and fine, how that one went, I guess. But, still, compare that suspension to the episode included in both those examples. All I'm saying is that it might seem strange how much our standards have changed in recent times. Of course, how much have our standards really changed, since there's still so much toxin and filth in the water as such?

It's just a curious comparison.

But that also brings me to ....

• • •​

Geoff:

Look, man, what can I tell you? It really isn't about you. But let's get something out of the way:

• I know you don't like how I view you.
• I have given you examples, before, of why I hold that view.
• You have not refuted those examples so much as changed the subject.
∴ I am not sympathetic to your continued whining about specious and malicious interpretation.​

The reason your behavior is mentioned in the first place is that it happened to be you. The kafir episode was a repeat of something we've witnessed before. Indeed, there is an irony on this count about your rant:

The circumstances are, actually, important, Geoff. It was the last time that something happened.

It was an ugly affair, and at the heart of it was the question of whether S.A.M. was suspended based on what the complaint alleged or what she actually wrote. The kafir episode resulted in a member suspension, had similar suggestions of a rushed decision, and and involved Islam.

As I noted in #109, the post to which you so strenuously object:

We had a huge fight at the end of 2009 over an abstract question that essentially treads in the realm of whether or not we should substantiate the accusation before punishing the accused. And in the year-plus since, it has become quite clear: If the accused is Muslim, no substantiation is necessary. And maybe some have noticed, we just had that fight again.​

And that, Geoff, is why the kafir episode is relevant. And, yes, we know you don't like how I see you, but I'm not the only one in this community with a poor opinion of your behavior, and in that context, it only makes certain outcomes seem even more bizarre.

Certain outcomes? Well, see, that was the whole context of the discussion at that point. That is, you might notice there is "someone else" I've been especially hard on, and it's not James, and it's not Will. Okay, yeah, sure, I've been kind of hard on them, but if you follow my discussion with Quadraphonics, and even the part where Will and I seem to have stopped fighting for the moment, you'll notice I'm talking about how we, the staff, have screwed up, behaved inconsistently, and otherwise dug ourselves into a hole where petty disputes like PJ and Buffalo Roam take on the kind of significance they do.

And that's what this part of the discussion is about. You don't like how I see you? I don't care. You complain that my opinion of you changes. Geoff, I still appreciate the time we had that fun little digression about the dangers and obstacles facing revolutions. And when we're having a conversation like that, and there's nothing under the sun in your words that strikes me as bigoted, why the fuck should I jump down your throat? You and I might see at least some superficial aspects in what we were discussing, but that's still more subtle and substantial than many of our neighbors can achieve. Why on earth would I want to spoil such an occasion?

Anything your ego might demand at this moment is irrelevant.

 

You people nag like you are married to each other.

 

Getting back in the way

The guy who just directed about half the focus of his initial post on me finds my sudden choice of focus curious. All right.

Long since discussed and consigned to the trash bin of SF, Tiassa: you might try the last link of yours for a wrap-up. I know you linked it, but I would like to see you read it.

• • •​

Geoff:

Look, man, what can I tell you? It really isn't about you. But let's get something out of the way:

• I know you don't like how I view you.
• I have given you examples, before, of why I hold that view.
• You have not refuted those examples so much as changed the subject.
∴ I am not sympathetic to your continued whining about specious and malicious interpretation.​

[/quote]

Tiassa: your examples, as usual, are fairly well twisted around. There's no convincing you of that, of course, but don't start pretending that those examples haven't been refuted, period. It's old. It's lame. Yes, I understand your limited reasoning on this; it just doesn't happen to be reasonable, or correct. So in as much as you're entitled to return and rehash the same distal issue, over and over and over again, I am entitled to promptly tear you down, and when you similarly misalign more contemporary arguments. And this point is getting much more noticeable now, as you may have twigged to.

It always impresses me - and alarms me, moreso - the really considerable amount of disconnect that goes into the connection you and Bells make between those two items: as if, on the latter hand, I'm somehow attempting to insult another person who is not Muslim, who just happens to be...me. I've tried to inject the term intent into these sorts of discussions like an antibody to dissonance, but I can tell when I've been beaten. Words seem to stand up like dominoes for the two of you: bereft of direction and context, ordinal blips on a flat horizon.

I appreciate your digression into the past leading to the present, Tiassa. It's informative and I quite understand the bind you find yourselves in. But here's the thing: it's not a question of your opinion, Tiassa, because your opinions are not infrequently arbitrary and distorted; and while we're on the gloomy topic of community brow-beating, you don't smell like roses to a pretty wide chunk of the constituency either. It becomes a problem when you try to use those lighter-than-air concepts as stepping stones to launch yourself onto a higher soap box. One: because they're bullshit as descriptors of me. Two, following in part from one: if they're bullshit as cited, then it's entirely possible you're also talking nonsense about the greater problem. You follow? It's the scientific process at work, in which you are skipping steps. Think you've got enough case with BR et al? Fine. Base your substance on them, and leave your questionable descriptions of my intent out of it, or else clean up your preamble. No biggie.

So in summary, I have no problem with you picking examples for discussion, Tiassa. Pick as many as you like. You can discuss all kinds of things here. Just mind your representation of me as an example, or round and round we go. If you want to call it my ego kicking your ass around the forums, then that works too. :shrug:

Thanks for your time.