Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Arditezza, Sep 7, 2004.
I'm fucking fed up with him chasing away all the fucking scientists.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Perhaps you have a point there...that is definitely not a nice result. Alas, they should stand above such profanity, they can after all just ignore him.
Still, that does not really concern his modship, I found he is quite able as a moderator.
Of course I cannot back this statement 100% since I do not post so often in those forums.
Yes. It often suprises me how poor many scientists are when it comes to social skills.
That has nothing to do with our social skills.
It has to do with not being interested in discussing science in kindergarten.
Then why try to discuss science in kindergarden, if you are a scientist and know that science is nothing to be discussed in kindergarden?
If you wanted a science forum filled with other scientist, why don't you go to one of these fine forums:
Oh that right you want to have semi or non-intellectual conversations rarely related to you field of study, silly me stay here then.
Could you possibly write a sentence that makes sense? Or is that too much to ask for?
I found a nice forum for you WCF.
or this one
Now talk about kindergarten behaviour... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you reap what you sowe.
You were the one asking for more scientist not I. Yes indeed you reap what you sowe.
(Scoooorebooooard!) Honestly? Just let it be. This topic isn't worth the time it takes you to dignify it. You're clearly winning the vote, and the most part of Sciforums would be unhappy with the new standard of conduct invoked by your removal from office.
You've got a winning hand; don't throw it away. Make them keep drawing until they come up with something respectable. Junk hands have no sway on the table when you're the only one in position to make a bet. They need jacks or better to open, and right now they've got nothing.
Stop it! You two are being silly.
This is a banishment thread, did not even occur to me. My conversation here is between me and monkey: spuriousmonkey sided with paulsamel as such he is my swarm enemy. Spuriousmonkey approves of appeals to authority and demaned respect, what kind of loser comes to a internet forum to demand people respect him and teat him like he was above them?
Everybody wants the milk & honey. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that typo.)
In all honesty, I would focus instead on a specific aspect of that--the anger is apparently based on accusations lacking evidentiary merit.
yes funny typo. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually it's based on evidence from many posts passed, when ever I argued with paulsamel, spuriousmonkey would back paulsamel and try to persuade me to following paulsamel as my superior.
(Insert Title Here)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wrong anger. As you have it presently, it's not the most complimentary examination of your posting character.
Or, maybe not. There's a longview I can barely grasp, having not watched closely. But that speculative extrapolation isn't worth the time.
You're doing fine; let them be static. You give your critics the appearance of legitimacy in this case. Certes, there are times to tread down to the gutter to meet them, but I can't say for sure that this is necessarily one of them.
Your horoscope, good Fetus:
• Invisible hands do not get slapped when reaching for the cookie jar.
I do have some sense of honor you know? I can't just let people bitch about me without me bitching back. (insults sure, just send them off to the cesspool.)
Could you even imagine that 2 trained biologists agree because they were right and you were wrong?
No you can't. That is your problem. You can't possibly imagine that you are ever wrong.
Your anger is justified. And your argument shows a flaw of the forum setting. The victory goes to the loudest and most strident posters, not necessarily the ones that are in possession of the accepted facts in the scientific community at large.
However, the truth is that this argument has nothing to do with Fetus's qualifications as a moderator. If he were moderator of the biology or a science forum, then perhaps you would have a case. But as his mod powers are over wholely unscientific forums, they have no basis.
As I've said, I really don't post in WE&P and therefore can't say whether Fetus is worthy or not. The other mods have certainly come out in their multitudes to show solidarity, but is that surprising? No. It is standard operating procedure.
What I have noticed is a lack of general poster support. The vote is for him. But most posters seem to have no desire to enter the fray of commentary for yay or for nay. That is certainly interesting.
I wonder how many arguments have been won through temper tantrums and sheer persistence of will? How many arguments has Fetus herself won in this manner? And yet, this is only a side issue and not one that is truly relevant to impeachment.
I can't speak for the others, but the reason that I am unhappy with Fetus as a poster (not as a mod) is a direct result of the recent spurt of bannings. The Gendanken incident in particular is very striking because much of it resembles the Fetus incident quite remarkably. Both took place in the Picture Thread. Both were insults leveled at relatively new posters (although the intellectual level of the two (three) posters in question are quite different. I have no doubts that Inamorata truly held a degree. Either that or she had a spiel ready to bust out to "prove" her background in her introduction thread. However, her posting history was not impressive, IMO. No real contributions as of the date of injury.) And both were capped off with a "fuck you". Gendanken's was a more abstract "fuck you all" while Fetus's was a more direct "fuck you."
So, what does this have to do with impeachment? Nothing I'm afraid. But it shows my dissatisfaction with the situation. I would prefer it if the rules were more leniently followed, allowing such jibes on occasion. And, it seems they are. Now. On this occasion. Has Fetus been warned for his behavior? I don't know. The last I knew the offending remarks have not been edited in any way. Is Fetus remorseful for his behavior? It certainly seems not. He's mentioned that he, for one, is willing to apologize if he should happen to offend, yet that is as close to apology as I have seen him come.
I suppose the question is is this leniency a result of Fetus's modship? Or is it a result of the uproar over the recent spate of bannings? I'm afraid that with the silence that descends so mightily from certain quarters, we'll never know. Keep them in the dark seems to be the decision. Anyway, if the leniency is on account of the former then this situation would show an abuse of moderator power. But, not necessarily Fetus's power. Unless she warned and edited herself. (Heh.) Otherwise, this situation is good in that it shows that the will of the posters has spoken. I suppose the way to test it is for some brave individuals going out on an insulting spree. Let's see if this leniency is shared by all or a select few.
So, all in all, Fetus has proven himself to be an asshole. Yet, being an asshole is not necessarily indicative of his worthiness of modship.
The vote is rather close at the moment, though, isn't it?
As I stated earlier, I voted yes out of pique and on reflection decided that I voted incorrectly. However, I'm not sure if such a reneging of one's vote is sanctioned under the rules.
Keep your fingers crossed, Fetus. It is possible that interpersonal skills might just spell your doom. Because while in the past other moderators have won votes even though there personal skills are acerbic, said moderators also have proven to be intelligent and thoughtful posters. There is a delicate balance at work here. And, perhaps Fetus may weigh on the wrong side of the scale.
Or perhaps the yes votes are even coming from genuinely dissatisfied WE&P posters? Who knows? I certainly don't.
Separate names with a comma.