Why Hypewaders Suspended Quadraphonics

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by hypewaders, Jun 23, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The record, such as it is

    Let's turn to the record, shall we?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To borrow a word: Next?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, maybe you could tell me what it's meant to convey.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The record disagrees with you

    Follow the posts, connect the dots ... or, since it's probably easier if I just reiterate:

    I would suggest the quote Gustav included in his response was accurate.​

    And, yes, I'm aware you disagreed. That's the point: The record disagrees with you.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    evidence doesn't matter you'll just twist into something else like you did when you almost got me banned for calling you out on your dishonesty.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Fascinating - but in specifically what way? There are any number of debates floating around (see also below) and it would be nice if you could speculate as to exactly what gustav's linked post means to this debate.

    Do me a favour here: I'm trying to see things your way.

    Evil, dishonest me. PJ: I'm trying to be nice here. Really, I am. But what you were saying was simply untrue; it was I calling you out, not the other way around. I demonstrated this, after which James decided that I wouldn't be banned. I, too, was on the line there: I hope you remember that part. Your banning was apparently let drop.

    I'm sorry, but I don't twist evidence; you're free to think what you like, of course. You could even call another mod on me for having the temerity to disagree with you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (Tiassa: was that nice enough?)
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Pine much?


    I disagree with Sam all the time. On a range of things. Including some of her opinions in regards to Israel and Jews. Yet, she does not accuse me of being "in the pay of the Zionists". Funny that, huh?

    Actually no. You did not.

    Correct link. Look at the style and the style of his parody. Considering she and many others, not Sam and Billy, speak like that all the time on this forum, who was he immitating?

    The fact that he makes a parody about it kind of answers the question, don't you think?

    You are being anti-semitic.

    Tell me, lets say a person browses this forum without knowing the 'history' of that parody. What would their impression be? That quad was a raging anti-semitic and you, spider and lucy cheering him on. The parody of anti-semitism is anti-semitic. Look at the words used. When Sam says it, it's anti-semitic. But quad says it in parody and it is suddenly funny? The basis of that parody is the death and pain of both sides of that situation. You find that funny?

    Because I saw the deaths of people as being more important than a song?

    Because you choose not to see it.

    I can lead a horse to water Geoff. But I cannot make him drink it.

    The context is there. You choose to not see it.

    Bullshit. You don't care. So why apologise?

    I call you dumb because you insult our intelligence by acting dumb.

    Actually yes.

    I'm sorry Geoff, when you say 'I feel for them, "but"'.. That is how it is perceived. And that has been your argument on this issue since you joined this forum.

    How do you know she was not being sarcastic? Reading it, it could be perceived as sarcasm.

    I don't need to accuse you Geoff. Your posts accuse yourself.

    You're not the only one. I'm just glad natural selection did not turn me into a hand wringing hypocrite.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That wasn't pining.

    It is and isn't. I interact with her more often.

    Sam. I take the man at his word. I don't think this line of argumentation is reasonable.

    Because she means it.

    [quote[But quad says it in parody and it is suddenly funny? The basis of that parody is the death and pain of both sides of that situation. You find that funny?[/quote]

    I find his choice of style and construction quite funny. I take it that you do not.

    Actually it was because you dismissed the meaning of the event to premeditation. You did dismiss that hatefest as unimportant, mind. It is possible to condemn both things.

    No, Bells. The context is there. It beggars belief that while following a line of inquiry about why Jewish people like to separate themselves from all outside influences that they consider unholy, Sam decided to make an unrelated post on Jewish parents training their children to apparently surreptitiously spit on unbelievers. It's difficult for me to believe that you believe this perspective; it just isn't believable. I notice Tiassa seems to have absorbed this also.

    Well, clearly it must be part of my evil plan.

    In point of fact, I do care very much. I don't wish to offend people, usually. You're free to believe me or not. I doubt there's much I could do to convince you. Just remember you're not living in a daytime drama, all right?

    Wit seems like magic to those who possess none.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Why don't you try asking yourself whether I really believe the things you accuse me of, and read what I write?

    Then the standard of English here is low. Could you point out my "but"s? In what context do they occur? I think you'd be surprised at what you find.

    No, it could not.

    I'm not the only one who's glad I'm not you?

    Take a moment out and read the posts following that one.
     
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    I find this whole thread absolutely fascinating. Do not attempt to try to apply that adjective to the underlying subject matter, as I am specifically renouncing any association thereof, although I am familiar with the relevant threads, posts, allegations and so forth.

    What I find interesting is this particular slug-fest and its goals, or more specifically the lack thereof. Or, at least my lack of understanding of any such goals. What, pray tell, do any of you hope to accomplish here?

    Vindication? Retribution? Some sort of fundamental attitude change on the part of certain of our neighbors? Not to mention the fact that I could swear these sort of "Why was xyz banned" topics have been specifically singled out as unacceptable? What? It's different if a Mod decides to start one?

    Anyway, coming from a nobody, maybe it's time everybody took a deep breath. Y'all are keeping me from my favorite mind numbing TV shows, the entertainment value here is simply too high. So you've gone eight rounds (pages), might we expect the bell to ring at ten? Then we can count casualties and go back to the regularly scheduled veiled insults and innuendo before the community is torn asunder, eh?

    Comprende? Just my two cents worth...
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Accomplish? Accomplish? This is SciForums!

    Interesting post, Randwolf.
     
  13. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Oh my....

    /wipes tear from eye
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Reflections of ... what?

    I don't think that's a necessary prerequisite. The question of Quad's belief is whether or not he thinks the parody, as such, is accurate.

    An abstract analogy: If a man happens to disdain sex with a menstruating woman because the blood makes him uncomfortable in some visceral way, one might satirize an asserted aspect of prudishness; but a parody suggesting he is running around slicing out women's utereses (uteri?) would be a bit extreme, somewhat distorted, and entirely removed from accuracy.

    Gustav's examples in #44 and 45 suggest that the "parody" does not reflect the real dimensions of S.A.M.'s posts. Indeed, in that sense, the parody says more about Quad than anyone else.

    As I advised one of my colleagues some months ago, S.A.M. is viewed by many as some manner of extremist because they need her to be. They justify their hostility by transforming her into some sort of bugbear.

    I've found, over the years, that on those occasions I disagree with S.A.M.'s presuppositions, the conflict is easy enough to address. Even if I get some aspect of those presuppositions wrong in my response, I've found her much easier to get along and reconcile the differences with than many, if not most of the members I encounter and engage here. Useful and productive dialogue with S.A.M. is not exactly difficult.
     
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    It is: to make the argument, you have to believe it yourself. Admittedly, yes, this is without consulting him.

    The first part of this wasn't clear: "The question of Quad's belief"? Or is it "the question of the intended offensiveness"? If Quad considers it accurate, what then?

    As to the abstract: if the man is squeamish around menstrual blood and the extremity of his dislike considers running around slicing out uteri, then it's a fair comparison.

    Quadra was speaking to the motivations thereof. As such, it's a tenable parody.

    Let's put it this way: I have no particular reason to be hostile to an anonymous internet identity. I have no reason to consider her an extremist. It's the content of what they might say or do that would lead me to be judgemental - if one wants to call it that. I give her her shake; where I cannot find common ground, I don't. I submit that there's little productive to be gained from the bigoted post she was banned for. One thing I find about this subject is that many people are willing to let anything Sam says go - because they need a stalking horse for unpopular opinions, possibly, or because they feel there's inadequate representation of alternative viewpoints.
     
  16. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    G, isn't that one just a bit disingenuous? (To borrow a favorite fora phrase...)
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, like I said: I have no reason to consider any particular internet alias extremist or otherwise. It's what people say that makes any difference to what is otherwise a blank slate.
     
  18. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    So, if I understand correctly, you have no a priori opinion regarding an "internet alias". Still, by any reasonable standard, after these "tabla rasa people" make enough statements to form a profile, you would have to agree that some can be considered extremist, right?

    If so, may I inquire as to your characterization of SAM, after her fifty-gazillion posts?
     
  19. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,061
    I've nothing topical to add to this thread that I didn't already mention earlier. This discussion has almost run its full course so far as I am concerned (& I've enjoyed the ride) although I would still appreciate it very much if Quadraphonics would speak up here before we adjourn this thread.

    Summarizing my thoughts, Quadraphonics wrote too offensively for my taste as a member, and for my interpretation of the forum rules, specifically the ones pertaining to hate speech and insulting other members. He was suspended for a single day as it turned out, and now he is free to participate without introducing similar disturbances- and with no hard feelings whatsoever from me. A short mandatory holiday from Sf is not a felony, and not a scarlet letter. I have a very short memory of these things, and that is why I'm learning to use the moderator tools and the standards of comparison when something on my moderator beat just seems to be a lot like shit. We don't punish minor and short-term slips here. We remove people who do not respond to warnings about breaking the basic courtesies required here, and who (consciously or stupidly) persist in transgressing when warned.

    As for all the surrounding hubbub here, to me it just boils down to confusion about the standards. For a "sciency" place, we really don't refer to the rules enough, and we don't apply simple tests of our own works with regards to the rules enough here.

    Earlier in this thread, I issued a personal challenge to GeoffP about this. But it was on edit, and he missed it. No matter, because the actual contest would be silly. A truer challenge can be taken up by each of us at any time. The refinement of this venue is really all about sincere and independent comparison by each of us, of how our own contributions here compare with the standards.

    The point I really want to make is that if all of us who value our time here will examine our own posting habits and histories with regard to the rules, then variations in moderating will matter very little. Dialogue among respectful people is self-moderating and stimulating, and attracts more interesting people here to interact with.

    Respect doesn't mean we can't kid each other, can't occasionally show anger, attraction, revulsion, and all kinds of emotions around here- But because of the limitations of the interface, the rules (when applied) keep the quality of information and interaction higher, and the misunderstandings and distractions lower. The stronger the emotions we feel while posting, the more we should each remember to review the rules, then review and edit our own posts so that they conform- and Save Changes.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2010
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Counting down the minutes?

    So how is it that you get that tag and others who interact with her more than you do, do not?

    Sam?

    Okay. Then can you point out where Sam has told other members to go piss up a rope and called another member a bitch, amongst other insults?

    How are you 100% sure?

    If we were to take your posts at face value at the moment, one could say you were a racist and a bigot, not to mention anti-Muslim and anti-semite.

    No. I do not. Not at all.

    I don't find amusement when the subject matter is the actual suffering of millions of people. I am strange that way.

    I dismissed it because you had zero proof that those people were the ones on the ship. I dismissed it as being less important because 9 people dead.. the hateful words of a song tends to lose a bit of significance in that it is no longer the primary importance. I was not the one saying 'it's bad they were killed, but they were singing anti-semitic songs'. That was you. There is no "but" in either situation. The "but" excuses the actions of the IDF that led to 5 people executed and the other 4+ killed.

    Are you saying what she has said is not true?

    The thing is Geoff, how she worded it was anti-semitic and the manner in which she used it was also. But the actual fact is what she said was true.

    Is recognition of a known fact anti-semitic? It depends on how it is worded.

    So why do you think they spit? Because they resent the presence of Christians perhaps? Want isolation from non-Jews?

    Evil plan? No.

    I just think you're that kind of hypocrite.

    That's the thing. I do believe you that you mean what you say.

    'The plight of the Palestinians is bad.. "but"...

    I believe you actually believe that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Isn't that what you want? To be believed?

    I have Geoff. On many occasions. You choose to disregard it. Your problem. Not mine. As I said, I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make you drink it Ed.

    You actually believe what you write. Good for you. As I said, I just think you're a hypocrite.

    Why not?

    I'd suggest you read what I had said.
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    damn
    how dare you take the wind out of my sails and rain on my parade, bells

    /chuckle

    The thing is Geoff, how she worded it was anti-semitic and the manner in which she used it was also. But the actual fact is what she said was true.

    explain please. how does revealing the truth subject one to the charge of racism? can you point out the semantics that offend? how would you have worded it? what manner do you refer to?


    i am genuinely interested so do indulge
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I think it was more the manner in which the whole spitting thing was introduced. The fact is not anti-semitic. Recognising it happens is not anti-semitic. It is apparently a fairly genuine problem and embarrassment in Israel. But the manner and context in which it was introduced can be construed as being anti-semitic. Akin to finding anything at hand to hurt or insult.. The one you linked, her discussing it was part of the thread itself. This time it didn't seem that way to me.
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    please explain how and why with regards to manner and context
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page