WellCookedFetus's Moderator Position

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Arditezza, Sep 7, 2004.


Should WellCookedFetus be removed as a Moderator?

Poll closed Sep 21, 2004.
  1. Yes

    19 vote(s)
  2. No

    25 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member


    1) Your opinions are not against the rules as someone managed to post the very same opinions and back it with evidence.

    2) Because if you don't then why should we believe you, many people don't provide evidence and thus many will ask them "why should we believe that?" at which point there argument is revealed to be null. The way you distributed your opinion was not in argument form but in inflammatory pictures, fearing retaliation or at the very least total ignoral of you topic that I think needs to be discussed intellectually, I close your thread.

    When others post computer generated pic of Bush snorting smack and saying "look at him snort smack, re-elect a drugy?", I'll delete that to.

    Your stating the truth without evidence and appealing to imagery was pretty bad statement. Sorry it is not true until you prove it true, and based on your imagery you have a lot to prove. If you want to learn how to make proper arguments I recommend readings on critical reasoning skills and fallacies, general philosophy also helps.

    Your link must be broken because, unless you think the whole subforum supports your statement?
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2004
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    The case is presented in the beginning. Unlike you I don't feel the need to reiterate the same point over and over until the other person gives up.

    get a mouse with a scroll wheel and scroll to the beginning of the thread.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    I don't fear anything. You scare scientists away.

    What is that supposed to mean? Is a little conspiracy theory building up in your brain again?
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    It is rather condescending to recommend me to go to another science forum. As if I can't find the google button on my browser.

    I never told you I wanted more science. I was of the opinion that you should stop being an asshole towards every scientists that comes to this forum. Maybe then the level f this forum can ve raised. Because that seems to be the public standpoint of sciforums management: there is a desire to raise the level of the forum.
  8. HOWARDSTERN HOWARDSTERN has logged out.... Registered Senior Member


    Since you have already berated me for posting in this thread (and called it cross posting), I will direct you to the other thread:
    I had not intended to carry on the same debate on two different threads. But I feel that I must respond to your many false accusations against me on this thread.

    You say that my opinions are not against the rules, yet you say that I can't post them, without providing evidence that they are my opinions with this rule:
    Political Forum Rules
    C. Stating Opinions
    If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

    For one thing, wellcookedfetus, that rule makes no sense at all. It says that I must provide evidence of my opinion. An opinion is just that. An opinion does not mean that it is a fact. There is a big difference between an opinion and a fact, wellcookedfetus.

    I don't care if you believe it or not, wellcookedfetus. It's up to you or anyone else to choose to believe it or not.

    Besides all that, wellcooked fetus, I did not state that any of the things at my closed thread were facts. In fact, I was asking questions, not stating anything as being a fact.

    You seem to be more than a little confused about the differences between opinions and facts, wellcooked fetus.

    wellcookedfetus, the quote above that you wrote pretty much says it all. It should not be up to you to decide what is being discussed intellectually. Your job should be to maintain the peace to some degree, basically.

    For god's sakes why? Yes it will offend me, but that's why I read that forum: to find out about the opinions of those that I don't agree with. I don't want you or anyone else to sugar coat it because you are afraid that someone will be offended! That's their opinion, wellcookedfetus. I know it's not true. If I want evidence from the guy that posts a picture of GWB snorting coke, I'll ask/demand it from them myself. I don't need you to hold my hand & spoon feed me or the other members, sir.

    First, I never stated that it was true, wellcookedfetus. You are accusing me of something that I did not do. In fact, I was asking a rhetorical question & commenting that if true, some people could be looking at prison time. After that, I posted pics & humor. Obviously, you don't know the difference.

    Second, I should not have to prove anything, wellcookedfetus. That is not what the political forum is about. If you are so hot for the truth, wellcooked fetus, then you should try to find it in official government records, by way of the Freedom Of Information Act. Or at least watch the goings on of the government at C-span, with an open mind and a large dose of skepticism of both parties. That skepticism should also be applied to all sides of the media, as well as the many political action groups that are constantly jockeying for power over others, by way of bills & proposed amendments.

    Again, I did not make any statements saying that they are absolutely forged documents. I NEVER said that!


    My God man, based on what you have written so far, I believe that any reasoning person would suggest that it is you who needs take a remedial course in critical reasoning!

    As far as my ability to make proper arguments, I think that what I have written in this argument with you proves that you could learn volumes about philosophy, reasoning skills, ect.. from me, guy.

    Honestly, wellcooked, I don't know what the hell you mean by this one. I'm damn good at deciphering gibberish of idiots, but that one takes the cake!

    Besides, I'm just tired of your retarded arguments. Yes, I guess that I just flamed you a bit, but what the hell! At least there is plenty of proof, that you have so willingly provided.

    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  9. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Xev and Bells-

    Let me clear something up, since you can't stop making this about me.

    Just because the threads I started are "mostly" in SFOG, you will find that most of my posts are not. I wasn't aware that one had to start posts in other forums to be contributing to the discussions. I contribute to lots of discussions in other forums, tho I do rarely begin them. Does that make me someone only concerned with SFOG?

    I think that you two have both completely mislabeled me on some absolutely bullshit idea that one needs to begin posts in a forum to actually be contributing.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Ardi, calm down. Don't get your knickers in a knot. I was merely saying that the only place I ever see you post is in SFOG. How have I mislabeled you in saying that? You like posting in here? Then good for you. Keep on truckin... I don't particularly give a flying shit where you post, I was merely pointing out my own personal observation. And seeing that this is the first thread that I voiced that observation, I would hardly see that as something that I can't stop doing. Now get off that high horse of yours. And for God's sake, stop taking everything said in here so personally.
  11. Arditezza Banned Banned


    I'm not upset, and it was more directed at Xev than you as she is the one in this thread constantly trying to make this about me, and she's already pointed out several times that many of the threads I have started are in SFOG, as if one has to start threads to be participating in other forums. I'm not taking it personally, just trying to focus the attention back to the point of the thread and away from slinging accusations as to my intentions by disproving the accusation itself.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Arditezza, it doesn't matter how many other threads you start in other forums. SFOG is a forum like all the others. You're right, this thread is not about you and if I in some way pointed out comments at you, then I apologise. No offence was meant.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Neither, apparently, do you pay attention to people's posts.

    You've refused to address a simple issue:

    • Xev's responses pretty much address the case presented at the outset. There is nothing new to go on.

    Why didn't you answer that point before? Is it because you can't think of a legitimate answer?

    You present disingenuous criticism, you duck the legitimate issues, and then you complain that the issues considered by what you've ducked aren't being held aloft as some sort of Gospel of Hate.


    I have more of a problem with folks like you, who exist it seems merely to waste bandwidth and people's time for some petty exercise in self-gratification, than I do with the odds and ends slings and arrows that go on around here.

    If you're so thin-skinned and intellectually stunted that you can't deal with WCF in a manner that legitimizes your complaints, don't take it out on the rest of us.

    Once upon a time a band called Chemistry Set sang, "Baring your soul is the 'in' thing to do; it's fun and it's easy for an empty-headed fool." A decade and a half's consideration of the point suggests that the soul-bearing fools were, at least, trying to be constructive. These days, selfish complaining, egocentric demands that the Universe conform to your will, are the fun and easy things to do. I'd rather drink with the fools of old, because at least they're trying to be honest.

    I don't know what your excuse is, Spuriousmonkey.

    Don't be so dishonest.

    Don't waste SFOG with such a pathetic excuse for argumentation.

    That case at the beginning has been effectively addressed, and you and all of WCF's angry critics have pretty much avoided any response or rebuttal.

    So either put up or cram it. If you can't make an intellectually-honest argument, then stop touting your goddamned scientific credentials, because you're showing exactly what they're worth: nothing.

    Seriously, do you claim that your arguments represent your training?

    Such hostility doesn't really make any point. Just because you are afraid to examine this case honestly doesn't mean you have a point to make.

    Get an attitude check, beg, borrow, or buy a point, and try being a decent human being for once in your Sciforums life.
  14. gendanken Ruler of All the Lands Valued Senior Member

    For what its worth-

    The Fetus has not broken any moderator rules- everyone here is ill-mannered to some extent.
    Should we go down the list and ban or dethrone everyone that breaks the 'rules'? If so, save the energy and just blow the whole fucking place up.

    What irks is that Fetus sounds like a fucking fetus.
    Tiassa is a man of position. So is James. So is Coffee and Xev and whomever else I've left out (other than the Fish because I'm being a vindictive cow.)
    Wouldn't you rather focus on the Fetus' incapacities as an intellectual than as a good hall monitor? Tessie I'd run over in a millisecond but I respect him as worthy of his position.
    The Fetus can't even type.
  15. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Voted no, because he's making considerable effort, learning, and showing progress. I liked him better before he was a monitor, but I don't want to see him cast gasping from the incubator yet- better to see what develops. Even a monster would be amusing. : pokes WCF with stick:
  16. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    I really don't give a fuck about argumentation. You seem trouble understanding that nobody cares about your argumentation either.

    edit- let me concentrate the message for you: I do not care.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2004
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    You never did. That's why you were incapable of supporting your libelous venom with anything substantial.

    Of course, why would a trained scientist care about argumentation, reliability, validity, method, investigation, or anything else so similar?

    Better scientists than you do care about those things. You're just a random attitude problem. If you don't care, then why waste your time on such topics? Oh, that's right, you don't. You just pop off with whatever dishonest crap comes to mind and pretend it's real.

    Let me concentrate the message for you: Leave the discussion to the intelligent people.
  18. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned


    like who? You?

    you are funny.
  19. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    All those dirty words
    They make us look so dumb
    What happened to us?
    Soon it will be gone forever -- and it's gone ...

    For crying out loud, is declaring how much one doesn't give a fuck about something or someone really such a virtue one must aspire to?!
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

  21. water the sea Registered Senior Member

  22. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    It is not so much a matter of not caring about things but rather caring about the proper things.
  23. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    And in the case of WCF, these "proper things" are ...?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page