Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by The Marquis, Nov 14, 2014.

  1. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Communist China, North Vietnam, the Khmer Rogue and U.S.S.R all had 're-education' for ideological dissidents. Coincidentally, all of these regimes were leftist. Go figure.

    See what I mean? You're just another typical leftist trying to purge any ideas or thoughts that you find offensive. You've already made *four* threats of moderation against me in the span of a few weeks (which amounted to nothing, might I add). Now that I've bottom spanked you like the petulant little child you are, you will no doubt go and kick and stamp your little feet to the moderators again. I'm not sure how seriously they will take your hysterics, though.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    I'm afraid you'd lose that wager.
    Curious, the use of the word "more". What might "more" have entailed, I wonder? What were you expecting, exactly? What might "more" be... a sudden backflip, and agreement based upon my sudden realisation that your little ploy has indeed struck a telling blow? Please do elaborate, I'm anxious to know.

    You see, Kitti-cat, for your "point" to have had more impact, you'd have needed to hit the target. And then, of course, it still wouldn't have worked... because I might actually enjoy that.
    Alas. T'was not to be.

    My response was not what you expected at all, was it. I've been here quite some time, you see, and bravado shown by those inexperienced with it is quite recognisable.
    It's a little like looking at a photo of a girl who has never modelled before, trying to strike a pose.

    But, of course, it was not me you from whom you were seeking benediction. Oh, no.
    Tell me. Do you think you might?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    "More" would have been a sudden stroke of understanding or, dare I dream, even realization.

    You said, and I quote:

    Now, the statement here seems to be threefold:

    1) An established set of regulations is incapable of functionally performing in an "open" environment such as the Internet.
    2) Justice does not equate to Lawfulness, in so much as the Law can be wrong depending on the situation
    3) Trying to enforce established rules will not result in justice

    As such, it appears you are suggesting that instead of moderators enforcing established and known rules, they should act differently for each situation based on what "appears right"...

    My response highlighted a key issue with such

    That is, each moderator would act and react differently to a situation depending on their personal outlook and views. My example being that, if I were the owner of a forum I wanted to have as a place of scientific discussion and intellectual stimulation, I would take harsh action against those who use fallacious arguments, personal insults, and other such "emotion tugging yet factually void" statements in order to try and win an argument.

    Would I be correct in such action? No, I would not; I can say that because despite my own personal opinions, I can step back and look at the larger picture, which is to say that such an "iron fist" rule would most likely result in a desolate forum void of ANY discussion.

    Thus, here at SciForums, we have established rules that are enforced. The rules are not always perfect, nor do they cover every situation; that is where "moderator privilege" comes into play, as well as our back-room Moderator sub-forum... it is where we can discuss with other moderators, and indeed the administration, concerns, potential issues, and potential punishments. It is an attempt to use a constantly adaptable and improving system instead of entirely static regulations.

    The regulations, however, MUST BE PUBLISHED FOR PUBLIC VIEW... or else how is anyone supposed to know what kind of behaviors and actions will not be tolerated?

    Now, if I have misinterpreted your initial post here, then I do apologize and would ask you to elaborate a little bit; I am, after all, mostly human, and as such I am not immune to misunderstanding nor am I immune to cognitive biases, try as I might to prevent them influencing my understanding.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Of course you do. I gave that to you freely, along with implicit permission for you to use it.
    I enjoy handing people a gun and finding out if they can aim straight.
    Yet here I am. Still standing.

    I'm well aware that you see that aplenty. What I'm saying to you, is that most people, in fact, don't blame the victim at all.

    Bells, it's becoming increasingly difficult to speak to you.
    Your entire argument here consists of "If I believe that 1+1=2, then I must by extension believe that 2+3=6".
    I'm afraid I do not.
    You do. And you're projecting your own fear on everyone who disagrees with you. Now, I understand that you've had personal experience with this, but I'm not afraid to tell you that in your case, that experience has not led to understanding, but more one of fear.

    Bells, the acknowledgement that a victim was walking down a dark street at night, and thereby taking what everyone knows is a risk, is not an assignation of blame. It is an acknowledgement of circumstance.
    "Victim Blaming" is a term which has been coined by those with a particular viewpoint. It's harsh, decisive, and polarising. It's a term only used by those who really don't know how people think.

    In purely neutral terms, the settlement of Australia was a settlement. For those of one view, it was a colonisation. For those of another, it was an invasion. The terms you use to describe a thing do not illuminate the viewpoint of another - they illuminate your own.

    When we achieve Nirvana, I'd imagine.

    Apart from noting the subtle difference between "at what point a woman can expect not to be raped" and "at what point women not expecting to be raped, suddenly are", I'd note here that "anyone" also includes you. And Tiassa.
    Your entire argument consists of the elimination of this "Rape Culture" you're so enamoured with. Of course, there has been very little in terms of concrete application of this theory, but while you're figuring it all out, your focus is on telling women rapists shouldn't exist, therefore women should not have to act as if they do.
    You're shutting down Trooper for saying, in effect, "well yeah, I'd like to be able to walk down a dark street at night, but until I can I hope you won't mind if I don't".
    Trooper, of course, was being a little less polite about it, for which I can not blame her.

    I don't actually. My comment about the "norm" was more in response to a general perception of what this site is becoming, not Troopers arguments in that thread in particular. From memory, it might have been in response to something Leibling said.

    Oh, and as an aside... my entire conversation with my "little friend", both out in the open and via pm, has been less than my correspondence with you by a factor of at least ten.
    Are you casting about trying to figure out why I'm in opposition to you on this? And this is all you can come up with.

    It would appear that insinuation is not alien to your repertoire, either. All these years, and you still think my motives are so simple.

    Which brings me to another point.
    This thread wasn't created to discuss rape prevention, or "Rape Culture" or what-have-you.
    I actually posted that opening post because I wanted to address the fact that a thread which was, was closed seemingly because you or Tiassa became tired of having your arguments refuted.

    Your response, for the most part, has been in defence of your rape arguments. And, of course, to note primarily that Trooper was shut down because she wasn't presenting anything new.
    To which, I'll ask you : What the hell are you doing here now?
    Rhetorical question, of course. You're presenting exactly the same "arguments" you did in that other thread. Nothing new, nothing we haven't heard before. You've actually come pretty close to hijacking my thread and turning it into yet another rape discussion so you can continue banging on about things those involved have been quite clear they don't agree with.
    So what's your next move? Are you going to shut down this thread because you can't follow the very rules you claim to have enforced solely for their own sake, and for no other reason?
    Tiassa shut down Trooper because... "nothing new was being presented". Or something, I'm not entirely sure. You're here agreeing with him... but nonetheless quite willing to continue on in spite of that.
    So one has to wonder.
    Do the rules give you any particular method by which I might shut you down?

    I'm tired, and becoming more than a little bored with this.
  8. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Of course - if you have an issue with a moderator, take it up with the admins and/or ownership.

    Honestly... kind of sounds like you realize you are in a no-win situation here... but again, I could be misunderstanding

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member


    I am imperfect; I know this. I also know where my imperfections stand in relation to those of others.
    They don't.

    It's why I am quite comfortable in displaying my imperfections, and why I demand more of them.
    Because I can.

    For the night is dark, and full of terrors.
  10. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    I fight when I choose to. I don't ask anyone else to do it for me.
    I can't even claim to be fighting to the best of my ability. I have neither the inclination nor the stamina.

    Not at all. I agree completely.

    The only question you need ask yourself is why that is so.
  11. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Alright, now we're getting somewhere... good. If you would be willing, I'd like to drop all pretenses and speak frankly?

    Simply put: The membership has no recourse, on their own, in regards to the moderators, super moderators, or admins. The reason for this is simple: The Admins work under the direction of the ownership of this site. They "recruit" Moderators to...well, in the past moderators had specific sub-fora they watched over, mostly chosen with regard to their abilities and knowledge in that area. With the new forum software though, every mod can moderate every sub forum... honestly, the software upgrade made a bit of a mess of a lot of things (like our discovery that the new infraction points system, while it would ban people at the right time, didn't UNBAN nor did it diminish points correctly... that is something still being worked on, if memory serves)

    There are two reasons for this:
    1) When you sign up at SciForums, you agree to follow the established rules laid out by the Administration
    2) Unlike in face-to-face confrontations, members have no "power" here... so to speak.

    Thus, the idea is that if a member has an issue with a moderator, they take it up with one of the SuperMods, someone who has been here a while and shown their ability to handle such situations impartially. If that does not grant satisfaction, or if your grievance is with a supermod, you can bring it to an admin (such as James R or Plasma Inferno).

    At this point, the Administrators decision is pretty much the final word - but the thing to consider is that, especially if something is not a clear-cut violation of the sites rules, but more... grey area... the moderators and supermods, and sometimes even admins, will discuss the situation among ourselves in the moderator sub-forum. Often times, moderators will bow-out, due to either being personally/emotionally invested in the discussion, the "target" of the action being discussed, or are otherwise too "close" to the issue to be an impartial voice. If a moderator takes action and the other mods and/or supermods present an argument as to why that action was inappropriate, it can/will be reversed.

    Do not feel like you, as a member, are impotent - if you have a concern, bring it up... but present it rationally and critically, not emotionally and angrily. Understand that moderators come here in their free time, without pay and often without even thanks, to try and keep this place organized. Right now, we are dealing with a particularly high influx of spam-bots, testing/troubleshooting the new forum software, and a myriad of other little things that need addressed. We honestly try to take into consideration the concerns of the membership, but sometimes that is not possible; there are those who are here not for any kind of actual discussion, nor to learn, but simply to seed chaos and discord; there are others who view a forum such as this as a public soapbox where they can push their views and "damn what anyone else thinks".
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Reasonable people are generally able to express the problem affirmatively.

    Are you capable of joining them?

    • • •​

    And here we come to the heart of the matter.

    One thing your tinfoil conspiracy theory has yet to account for is that if we wanted to actually silence Trooper we easily could.

    But since we haven't, you're inventing a new definition of shutting someone down.

    And that's fine; nobody says we have any obligation to take such trashy excuses for an argument seriously.

    One of the things you have to recognize is that the sort of tunrabout Tali is trying to play doesn't work if it doesn't match up with the facts, which is why Tali avoids them.

    You? Well, we've had something of a rivalry over the years; as I recall, you're one of the participants in a poetry slam some years ago that is near to the apex of people insulting each other at Sciforums. However, like listening to a Republican come out and say the bit about rape and abortion, it's a little weird when someone actually follows this particular course when feeding their own ego.

    It's not a question of why you're in opposition on this, Marquis, but, rather, merely wondering when you're going to come up with something substantial. You know, that isn't typical trolling excrement.

    Like when a person is incapable of making an argument to support various assertions; apparently in your book, that inability to express the argument equals refutation of another argument. I mean, you're aware of the idea of a fallacy, right? And you're aware that deliberately misrepresenting source information is not something we look kindly upon, right?

    So, now, can you please explain how a misrepresentation of a peer-reviewed paper in the form of a fallacious appeal to authority equals refutation of anything? And it would make your explanation more credible if you phrased it in some manner of affirmative argument instead of following your partner in stupidity, Tali, who seems much more comfortable accusing people while being utterly incapable of expressing a functional argument.

    We'll do everything we can to reasonably accommodate such disabilities, but there comes a point where we have to decide between the costs of embarrassing oneself and the costs of that spectacle actually doing damage.

    Meanwhile, we have this odd standard in place, which appears to have been invented specifically to protect misogynists from themselves. The idea is that sure, anyone trying this kind of bigotry about black people or atheists would be drummed out of here in a moment, but since it's about woman's share in society, well, we need to give this particular bigotry a bit more flexibility.

    That's the thing; this weird standard you and Tali find objectionable is designed to tax other people's patience and human dignity in order to award people like Trooper and Tali special rights compared to other posters. We could treat misogynists like Trooper and Tali the way we treat other bigots, in which case they would both be working their way through the ban cycle for their inflammatory dishonesty, but in issues pertaining to human rights and women the Administration has established a separate standard more accommodating of such bigotry.

    And trust me, getting rid of this standard? To the one, sure; I'm not certain who actually likes it. To the other, as it is Trooper is welcome to return, and there is a good possibility that she will, like others before her, return once her ego hardens up again.

    Make your case to James, then. Petition him that when and if Trooper returns, she be excluded from the standard he implemented. Explain to him affirmatively and specfically why we should exclude her from that standard. But also understand that in doing so, you're asking that we treat her specially as an individual compared to other people of her intellectual condition. Remind him that the defining feature of Sciforums is supposed to be its overriding respect for the scientific process, and then explain how strings of fallacies qualify as part of what this staff is supposed to respect.

    The ethical objection we have to such inquiries as we hear from you and Tali is that it really isn't about principle, but, rather, personal rivalries. As I've noted, Trooper's is at least the sixth thread closed under this standard, and what worry have you given to this subject before? As to the thread being closed, at present this thread has every appearance of cheap whine and cheese from adherents to Trooper's "secular sanity" personality cult in which she wishes to be represented by ideas and virtues unrelated to her argument or conduct. And because it's you, and because it's me, and because neither you nor Tali pitched this kind of bawling tantrum the first time it was closed, simply reminds that it's not about the action but your personal rivalries. And that notion is only affirmed by your repeated posts stacking up the evidence that this is all about personal sentiments and has nothing whatsoever to do with facts.

    I mean, it's always adorable when one sinks to Tali's gutter, arguing that being treated like everyone else under a given circumstance somehow equals singling a person out for extraordinary treatment.

    You're only embarrassing yourself at this point, Marquis.
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    watch out grissom, the pad leader is pissed.
  14. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Who is this 'we' that you are referring to? It is your behaviour, and only your behaviour, that is being called into question. You were the one who locked those threads, and you were the one who made the concluding derogatory remarks towards Trooper. Why are you attempting to drag unrelated individuals into this discussion? Do you think that if you can misrepresent Marquis as criticising the moderation in general, rather than just your childish behaviour, that you'll be able to win popular support to have him silenced? How ridiculously transparent and pathetic.

    Since you believe that as a man, you should 'protect women from themselves', I can only assume that you consider being female a disability to be 'accommodated'. How patriarchal.

    If you don't like the way the administration runs the forum, then all I can say is "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."

    As is typical of a left-winger, you're projecting your own failings on others. I know that you have had a long-running vendetta against Trooper (and pretty much any poster who has had the nerve to disagree with you, it seems), but I had no personal interest in either Trooper, or the locking of her threads. What I find disturbing is your burning desire to control the thoughts and opinions of women whom disagree with you.
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    The staff that enforces the policy. The Administration that invented it.

    And that's one of the indicators that this complaint is excremental.

    Then again, I wasn't the first person to close the thread, nor the first moderator to make the point to Trooper about her conduct when closing the thread. See prior section describing why your complaint is excremental.

    You will need to establish how the moderator who first closed the thread is unrelated to the issue. And then you will need to establish how the Administrator who reopened it conditionally is unrelated to the issue.

    If your complaint actually attended facts, it would not be hobbled by this shortcoming.

    Let us know when you're ready to start dealing with reality.

    Try dealing with facts, Tali.

    Or are you suggesting CluelussHusbund is ... what, a clueless wife? A clueless lesbian husband? He's fulfilled the "clueluss" part; have we a specific reason to doubt that he is a "husbund"?

    You're the one wasting this many posts complaining about the Administration's policy. Oh, right, you're not complaining about the Administration policy, just that it was enforced in a case of someone who happens to claim to be female while ignoring the men who have been saved from themselves.

    Ah, so that is what it's about.

    Nothing like arriving with a vendetta in mind and a chip on your shoulder.

    Deal with facts, Tali. If there is some reason you are incapable of being honest, do let us know. Otherwise, go ahead and give it a try.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    That is because in just about every second post you make on this site, you mention how much you are drinking. It's not that you give people permission to comment on it, it is that you appear to want to draw people's attention to it for some bizarre reason.

    That would depend on your interpretation. Someone saying "you share the blame" because you did not fulfill this bizarre list of totally personal opinions on what others should be doing for their supposed safety is blaming the victim.

    Because you are unable to actually support your argument.

    What fear am I projecting?

    And excuse me, but my personal experiences are not only none of your business, but have nothing to do with this discussion.

    We are supposed to be discussing what you seem to believe is our having shut down Trooper. Had you bothered to pay attention to what happened prior to her threads being closed down, you'd have realised that she was not only trying to re-established old arguments because she wanted to make a point at people and about people, but she was also completely unable to support and substantiate her argument. Perhaps you could explain why this should be allowed?

    I don't particularly care that you think walking down the street at night is unsafe. Others may disagree with you. There is nothing wrong with walking down a busy street at night. And that is the issue. Had you actually paid attention to what I linked, the issue that commentators who feel obliged to comment on what she did were more disgusted that she had gone to a bar with friends and was walking home late at night after a few drinks. Commentators on the radio going on about how she was a party girl, who had obviously gone out for a good time, etc. While she was still missing, attempting to cast doubt on exactly what kind of person she was, even speculating on what she was doing and where. That, sir, is victim blaming. As has been noted repeatedly, those who support your type of argument are completely unable to apply it to real life without infringing on the rights of others. And no, simply quoting from the likes of Pinker is not the way to go about it.

    It would help if you actually tried to make sense and discuss the subject matter of your own thread.

    In other words, women should just put up with being potential rape victims for their entire lives. What a lovely world you want for yourself.

    Of course you don't. Why should you?

    You believe that it is a woman's lot in life to be a potential rape victim. Any attempt to change the perspective of your privilege in that regard would be insulting for you.

    As I noted previously, treating women as though they are stupid and not respecting their choices and their decisions without people like you piping up about what you believe is safe and not safe for her to do is condescending and goes to the very issue of "rape culture". Would you go up to a grown man, a complete stranger at that, and tell him he should walk down the street because some guy might drag him into an alley and rape him? No, you wouldn't. Because you wouldn't interfere with what he may be doing. Nor would you appreciate others interfering with your movements and your life in such a way. But you you seem to think it is okay to have every Tom, Dick and Harry comment on every single thing a woman does in her life?

    And that is what none of you seem to get in this issue. Women are free individuals. Perhaps people can stop treating women like children and stop acting like patronising twats and you might just see the issue of rape culture evaporating. Why do you think that is? Because people who believe that women should be adhering to particular behavioural standards that they personally believe women should be and live like want that element of control. Like we control our children. And each person has a different opinion. In short, it is an absolutely impossible standard for any individual to live by and live up to. But I get how you can't quite grasp that. Why should you? You like that element of control, don't you?

    You jumped on the bandwagon. Trooper was never banned or barred from discussing anything on this site. What was closed were threads that were her merely quoting because she had a bone to pick with the management.

    Firstly, I do not particularly care who or what you speak to or correspond with, so why would you even bring it up? At all. Secondly, we have never, not once, have we ever agreed on anything. So why would I expect anything different from you now? This is the norm, Marquis.

    It isn't your motives that I think is simple.

    "Any savage can dance".. In other words, anyone can quote. Too bad she was completely unable to actually substantiate what she was quoting with a coherent argument about what she was quoting.

    But let's not let that fact pass you by.

    What I am doing here now is cutting through your BS.

    And there is a lot to cut through.

    As has been explained in the thread in question and here, the reasons her thread was closed are very clear. What part of it did you not quite understand?

    I think the wheels on your bandwagon are falling off. Enjoy the walk.
  17. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Which is, basically, what I just said.
    I also stated that said "realisation" is being presented under the implicit understanding that that "realisation" would be agreement with you.
    To see things as you do. A sudden enlightenment, as it were.
    Mind, I am using the word "you" very liberally, in this context.

    I will often labour under very much the same compulsion - to have others see things as I do. Nearly all of us, of course, labour under that compulsion.
    I believe at this point, however, that I'm somewhat ahead of you in the understanding that that is, unfortunately, increasingly unlikely.
    I have therefore spent some time here instead looking for those who might already. Take care not to surmise that this means those who agree with "me", specifically. But for those who can formulate an argument based upon a certain... indefinable spark. It has to do with intelligence, surely... but not only that. There is more.
    And when I do see them, I don't tend to do anything with them. I merely enjoy seeing it.

    From time to time, I'll rise up. I'm already aware of the futility of it; you yourself noted my... resignation.
    My defiance is both temporal and conditional. As to why I believe my presence here is futile.... well. I'd need to write a novel about that. And I know I never will, because I don't care enough about you, or any potential reward, to do so.

    But take comfort. You're going to win, eventually
    'Tis such a shame you never really understood the prize.

    "I have alluded somewhat vaguely to the merits of democracy. One of them is quite obvious: it is, perhaps, the most charming form of government ever devised by man. The reason is not far to seek. It is based upon propositions that are palpably not true and what is not true, as everyone knows, is always immensely more fascinating and satisfying to the vast majority of men than what is true. Truth has a harshness that alarms them, and an air of finality that collides with their incurable romanticism. They turn, in all the great emergencies of life, to the ancient promises, transparently false but immensely comforting, and of all those ancient promises there is none more comforting than the one to the effect that the lowly shall inherit the earth. It is at the bottom of the dominant religious system of the modern world, and it is at the bottom of the dominant political system. The latter, which is democracy, gives it an even higher credit and authority than the former, which is Christianity. More, democracy gives it a certain appearance of objective and demonstrable truth. The mob man, functioning as citizen, gets a feeling that he is really important to the world - that he is genuinely running things. Out of his maudlin herding after rogues and mountebanks there comes to him a sense of vast and mysterious power—which is what makes archbishops, police sergeants, the grand goblins of the Ku Klux and other such magnificoes happy. And out of it there comes, too, a conviction that he is somehow wise, that his views are taken seriously by his betters - which is what makes United States Senators, fortune tellers and Young Intellectuals happy. Finally, there comes out of it a glowing consciousness of a high duty triumphantly done which is what makes hangmen and husbands happy."
    H.L Mencken
    (and there is far more to what he said here, as well, if you care to go find it - bold is mine)

    Or, of course, for those with a slightly less literary bent, or a shorter span of attention:

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want; and deserve to get it, good and hard."
    H. L. Mencken.

    You know, I read an article in "The Australian" the other day. I don't remember the details, but the gist of this article was that, every year, there are less and less entrants for some hitherto-contested art prize.
    The crux of the article was not that there were less people willing to enter; more that there were less people actually painting.
    I felt the need to add that; I'm not entirely certain at this point as to how it is relevant.... at least, not entirely certain I could describe to you why it is. It is something I'd normally leave to my betters. But there are none here at this point I'd acknowledge as such.

    It should be noted that Mencken didn't go so far as to hypothesize an alternative. It is the overriding reality that we are, unfortunately, subject to the best available system of governance on offer. On this point, I have no issue. But when that system of governance becomes the goal in and of itself, I stand against it.
    I am not in opposition to tyrants, per se; but more in opposition to tyrants who usurp it for their own ends, when those ends are, at their core, in defence of a self which would be otherwise indefensible.

    The quickest to whip out the rulebook will always be those who have nothing else upon which they might stand. It not only serves as a shield, but as an authority upon which a man might be resolved of the responsibility of making an informed and reasonable decision.
    And it only takes a quick read of a newspaper, in these times, to see the depths to which the concept of personal responsibility has fallen. To the complete redefinition of reason itself to become that which is acceptable, as opposed to that which is true, or even that which is presented as presented as an alternative to accepted truth.
    Any strategist knows that defence is a far simpler path to follow than offence.

    You'll see them, there.
    Those who believe that a rejection of their answers is in some way a rejection of humanity itself.

    I might be back, I might not.

    Last edited: Nov 27, 2014
  18. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Before I begin, let me make it quite clear that last night... I wasn't sure I could be bothered. I'm not sure even now.
    In the last 24 hours, strategy has been discussed, behind closed doors. Has it not?
    Dare I hazard a guess as to what strategy was decided upon? Should I voice it, here, now... so that you might deny it?

    Yes, I'm well aware of this.
    You should take great care, however, not to assume that it is yourself inflicting that embarrassment upon me. Nor Bells.
    But I know that you do assume that, nonetheless.

    I did toy with the idea of refuting everything you've said above. I did; I even began to do so.
    But it did occur to me just then that to do so, would to be drawn even further into your particular game, to be forced once more, into that breach.

    I have given you credit in the past, Tiassa, for some intelligence at least... to this day, I'm not sure how aware you are, of what you are. I've mentioned that before; I'm doing so here again now.
    Bells, I could have torn apart quite easily. Her arguments aren't reasoned arguments at all, but in her defence it's fairly certain she doesn't know that. You, on the other hand... are more difficult to judge.
    Evil does not know itself.

    Given the propensity of the human mind to defend itself and its own preconceptions against attack, I could even write off your own defence of yourself here as being only that, and nothing more. But to embark upon such a path on my part is to lower myself to playing only on the ground you have prepared. And therein lies your strength.

    Hence my resignation.

    The entrenchment of yourself, your ideals, has become so ingrained that any assault upon that entrenchment is tantamount to ideological suicide; in the public eye, at least.
    For it is that, in the end, that you rely upon. Speak not to me of fact, nor logical argument... you do not know what those things are.

    Dionysian, Apollonian... Male, Female. Whichever terms one might apply to the conflict we are currently, and have always been, engaged upon.
    My issue with you, Tiassa, is not in your ideals, in themselves. It is in the process of thought behind those ideals.

    ... Can you hear the drums, Fernando?
  19. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    *tilt* I am curious... what strategy are you talking about?

Share This Page