Inflammatory topic post

[Tiassa]

Update the firmware.

 

[Zarkov]

For what it is worth.... long posts are never read in full.

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way. Should not have been posted and should be deleted.

Personally I am not a creationist, but I believe in a Creator, I do not believe in Darwinian evolution... IMO it is all genetics... I would think that Dr Lou needs a new mind.

 

[Silverback]

Rude/not rude? Who was rude first, who second? Do two wrongs make a right? How about three or four?

I started off neutral in all this and I have read all the astonishingly long arguments about it and most importantly the posts in question, so I will pitch in with my opinion.

Is Dr Lou "guilty"? Well, guilty of one thing. In his post he tells people what they are allowed to believe. That is the same thing organized religion does and that is why I don't do religion. That is the most damning thing I can really say about it.

Strangely, I think that might actually mean something to Dr Lou. Maybe I am wrong. Whatever. He can tell me to piss off, or he can laugh about it and I will too.

The beauty of the forum boards! If you don't like what you are reading, flip the page.

 

[Tiassa]

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way

Zarkov

What would you propose is a scientific treatment of the post? I would assert there's not much to go on, as I pointed out.

 

[Tiassa]

The beauty of the forum boards! If you don't like what you are reading, flip the page.

Silverback

That would appear to be the standard that will arise from this discussion, which is fine with me. I look forward to the end of the useless flamewars that have plagued this forum for some time. It would appear that, even as much as people complain about one another, "move on" can become the official manner of handling problematic posters. This will make things easier on moderators and posters alike.

And, technically, that will be fine with me.

By and large, I have little--if anything--against Dr. Lou Natic as a poster or in my impression of the greater human being on the other end of the network. But I must put my foot down at some point. Thus I request to convene this discussion in order to examine inflammatory posts and their effects in the Sciforums community.

Quite frankly, I enjoy Sciforums, except of late for the other posters around here. On the one hand, without them, there wouldn't be anyone to discuss anything with. To the other, even with them around, the same problem applies.

And given the Ban Wars, the tirades against posters, and of course the tantrums about the eventual moderation, I'm officially curious. (Topic Post)


Over time, the posters at Sciforums have never much liked the site rules. The terms of agreement were eventually shortened, specific site rules were eventually put into place. Even the simplest of these are disregarded so openly that moderators have no real chance of keeping up.

Quite obviously, one of the challenges is to maintain a certain air of civility while allowing people the liberty of their passions. A perusal of topics in the Sciforums Open Government forum shows a series of Ban Wars as members proposed to ban one another. What is most interesting is people's criteria for wanting a ban. There was a proposal to ban Undecided for a week for "unprovoked personal insults and foul language" and "arguing an unsupported position ... when provided with ample references and citations [to the contrary]". One proposal sought to ban Wanderer for "being out of touch with reality . . . for at least a week." A proposal against Fluid1959 sought to ban him for cross-posting. Undecided sought action against EI Sparks in response to what he considered an offensive ban proposal.

The first thing we have to note is that none of these ban proposals were successful. Undecided won his vote, Porfiry offered rulings on cross-posting and being out of touch, and the counterproposal against Sparks was shut down for its admitted vindictiveness.

However, there is an important consideration to note: People were upset enough by what to propose a ban?

Unfortunately, our purpose here sets aside the cross-posting issue, which is an excellent example of how Sciforums Open Government can work. Because in the ban discussions arising from conflicts between members, the lack of a successful ban proposal indicates that the standards by which the complaining party sought action did not meet the necessary severity to convince a majority of voters, or, in some cases, administrative tolerance.

In the case of whether or not to ban Undecided, eight people were offended or annoyed enough to vote for his ouster.

So whether or not we agree with the ban proposals of the past, we can observe that people are upset by the state of discussion.

Moving through the more argumentative fora, we find a plethora of bad sentiment in a diverse variety of acrimonious topics. Some of this bad sentiment is an unfortunate result of posters trying to communicate with one another, but much of it is posters reaching out to zing one another, to needle and provoke.

How are the moderators, for instance, to handle this? The time commitment of "babysitting" certain fora to make sure absolutely no violations of Site Rules would be stupendous. It is obvious that the posters discussing certain topics choose a certain amount of distress between themselves, otherwise bad sentiment would be reserved to legitimate collapses of communication. Meanwhile, moderators are criticized both for overasserting themselves and also for not doing enough to calm the storm. Posters are left with the appearance of an inconsistent standard and often must choose between allowing perceived abuse to stand without response or risk sanction by moderators. (First Argument)

Beyond that, I find it very interesting that people are so repulsed by the idea of having to give a small issue deep thought.

It is my sincere hope that this topic, then, can be the end of horseshit at Sciforums. People obviously enjoy being provocative around here, and that's fine. I mean, take Wes, for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me. Frankly, the course of this topic makes it easier for me to deal with him as he seems to be on the side that advocates the outcome that will undermine any cause he has to be offended by what I write.

You see? This works out for everyone. I just wish y'all weren't so damned impatient. It would have been nice to see what could have happened if people were willing to put two cents' worth of effort into their considerations, but obviously Sciforums isn't worth that.

At any rate, I thank you all. I think we can skip the vote, as the outcome is fairly clear. In the meantime, I'll step aside and let the tantrums continue.

(SciForums Open Government: In action and you don't even know it.)

 

[Zarkov]

Hi Tiassa

>> for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me.


seems to be a trait common to anonymous posters..... a slight discounting of THEIR theory (be it a pet or established) can create bitter immature enemies FOREVER

Curious is it not ???

Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

 

[Tiassa]

Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

I agree, though my phrasing of a similar concept--the amount of time we devote to intentional provocation being indicative of people's conditions--was considered inflammatory; I believe the description was "character assassination."

Nonetheless, I'm very curious about how I could have given Dr. Lou's post a "scientific" treatment.

Dr. Lou Natic's post as reproduced by Tiassa was childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way.

It would be very helpful if you could give some comment on what a scientific treatment would look like.

 

[Zarkov]

>> It would be very helpful if you could give some comment on what a scientific treatment would look like.

Oh I see an error.... I apologise...I was referring to Dr Lou's post, and not your appraisal

I did mean that Dr Lou's post was "childish and in poor taste, and definately not scientific in any way.", not your treatment,....

I believe you were correct to highlight the inflamatary nature and it's condescending tone....

 

[Tiassa]

Thank you for clearing that up. Now that you put it that way, I can't see how I read it any differently.

Maybe "they" are right. Maybe I'm making myself paranoid.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

WTF?
Not scientific in anyway? Since when would you have anything to do with science?
No this really irritates me.
Who said it was intended to be scientific you jackass?
It was logic, based on science, point out the flaws einstein.
"not based on science" doesn't mean shit to me. I can say your post was "based on faggottry" and that comment would have as much validity as yours did.
You piece of $h!t n!993R f@99()t j3\/\/!$h p!nko /\/\(_)$[!/\/\ 9()df(_)cker.

 

[Zarkov]

>> You piece of $h!t n!993R f@99()t j3\/\/!$h p!nko /\/\(_)$[!/\/\ 9()df(_)cker.

>> Basically it is a sign of the mental state of the world at this time in history IMO.

QED

 

[everneo]

It was logic, based on science, point out the flaws einstein.

1. You pointed out obvious & apparent work of subtle evolution.
2. You extra-polated this as a proof of 'orgin of species' as against creation.
3. And then you argued, if the 'creationists' do not accept your 'logical' proof of 'orgins' then they are forbidden & not to talk of heridity.

Most of the creationists, obviously don't agree with (2), the very bone of contention (whether it is right or wrong), but have no serious problem with (1). And hence your demand appears to be arrogant since it does not prove anything from the POV of creationists. For them, its like siezing the meagre property of the poor for the crime of withholding a fat tax that 'he could not pay'.

 

[wesmorris]

I think you have good points everneo, which might summarize the asshat's point in a much less inflammatory and much more succinct way.

Though I agree that you are correct, I still don't think the topic was intentionally inflammatory. I think this is a verbalization of Lou's attempts to understand the issues interacting here. Pretty much anything that is posted can be interpreted as inflammatory.

I suppose that raises the issue of "by whose standard is it inflammatory". Then I would say "a mod" I guess, in which case a mod should just behave as they deem pertinent.

I suppose I'm just saying that if you want to actually make a case for it, "inflammatory" should be clearly demonstrable in less than a goddamn thousand words. If you can't clearly show it's inflammatory in a paragraph or two, then shut the fuck up, try to extend a little understanding, perhaps educate someone and move on. Otherwise, be a mod and do what you have to do.

BTW:

I mean, take Wes, for instance, who has admitted privately that he's just in this because he hates me.

Our narcissistic host has mislead you as I'm growing to expect:

What a judgmental twat you're being, Wes.

I do judge you a piece of shit, yes.

Let's face it, you just like haters.

Nope, I just hate you.

It was an attempt at wit. I'd say it failed. In retrospect what I would have said is (instead of "I just hate you"): "No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."

*shrug*

I do hate you tiassa (in the manner that one despises the biggest lying jerk they've ever met), I think you are a despicable asshat hypocrite hater. As a matter of fact I think you're king of the goddamn haters given that you apparently don't even realize you're doing it .... even while you're accusing those around you of the behavior you indulge in. Jackass.

 

[Tiassa]

In other words, what a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate.

"No tiassa, I like people. Seems to me you spend too much of your time labelling people haters. Seems to me that uhm.. well, you're a fucking hater. Seems to me that I hate you, so obviously I don't like all haters eh? Piece of shit."

The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments. I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes. And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

Turn the page, move on, lose the hate.

You could have helped set a standard, Wes, but this is what you chose instead.

Oh, and btw, get some new insults. Borrowing from 15ofthe19 and KalvinB only reiterates the anemia of your tantrum. I mean, your words really are wasted on your hatred, Wes; you can't even be creative in your effort to assert tribal dominance.

 

[wesmorris]

In other words, what a ridiculous amount of words for never intending to communicate.

*is flabbergasted*

That you cannot see (or do not care about) the blatant hypocracy in your words in fucking amazing to me. I don't get how you can say I have ever spent a ridiculous amount of words on anything. Wow. You are seriously out of touch.

The only problem with your logic is your demonstrably supreme lack of qualification to make such assessments.

What? You're running the fucking Q course dipshit? FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T MAKE MY ASSESSMENTS FOR ME, GET IT FUCKNUT? That is a large part of your smarmy little problem. You somehow think you're entitled? I have made the assessement and I believe very accurate. Your approval is irrelevant since it is you that is being judged. You are entitled to your case which IMO, you have long since lost. I'll hear an appeal if you get an ego transplant, jackass.

I mean, look at the number of words you waste hating me, Wes.

After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously.

And in the end, all your complaints in this topic do is undermine your basis for complaint in general.

How clearly you've demonstrated that too. Gee tiassa, you said before that I didn't even know what I was talking about right.. if so, how is it that I could have a basis for complaint right? I mean, I'm just making shit up because I hate you right? Obviously I don't have a basis for complaint to be undermined then right? Jackass.

Turn the page, move on, lose the hate.

How compelling. What if my hate serves a purpose? What if in this instance, it is warrented? What if for instance, hating you keeps me on gaurd and sharp when I know you're around, such that I will not be accosted by you? What if my hate keeps me suspicious of your motivations and as such, allows me to keep you from poisoning the minds of those you would infect with your disgusting perspective? I do not celebrate my hatred of you, but I will not pretend it doesn't exist. I'll leave that to you.

You could have helped set a standard, Wes, but this is what you chose instead.

LOL. I chose to judge a piece of shit who has repeatedly lied and misrepresented about everthing I've ever said to him. I chose to judge a jackass who (for the nth time) was calling someone I like a "hater" and "inflammatory" because the stick up his ass broke his record some time ago. I chose to judge you because you told someone I respect to kill themselves, be it an off-handed comment or not. I judge you and I think you are a despicable ass.

Oh, and btw, get some new insults.

Why in the fucking world do you think I give a snot what you think of my insults? Perhaps there's some reason for them T. Perhaps there's something about those particular words that your jacked ass doesn't get. Perhaps you are ignorant. Oh you judge it though don't you? No? You're not a judgemental twat are you? LOL. Man you are a fucking mess. I'll be happy to help you sort through all of it if you can come clean and cut your bullshit hypocracy. If you can face it when confronted with it. Until then, fuck you, you worthless jackass.

Borrowing from 15ofthe19 and KalvinB only reiterates the anemia of your tantrum.

LOL. Right. I "borrowed it from them". LOL.

I mean, your words really are wasted on your hatred, Wes; you can't even be creative in your effort to assert tribal dominance.

What a joke you are man. Seriously. Tribal dominance? You've got to be kidding right? You are a seriously fucked up individual BD. My words are wasted on you no matter what I say I'm sure, but as long as I've decided to deal with you - I'll do it on my terms. If that includes reminding you very frequently of what a dipshit jackass asshat you are... then I will do so. Face your hypocracy or my slurs. It's your choice bitch.

 

[15ofthe19]

**Enters room briefly, overcome by the smell of charred flesh rushes quickly for the exit. Carnage is overwhelming.**

 

[Tiassa]

Wow. That's ... nice, dear. Have a cookie.

That you cannot see (or do not care about) the blatant hypocracy in your words in fucking amazing to me. I don't get how you can say Ihave ever spent a ridiculous amount of words on anything . Wow. You are seriously out of touch.

Imagine that we're looking at a round blot, a rorschach of sorts. Now, I might see any number of things. I might recall a fuzzy, two-dimensional black and white picture of a human egg, I might think of the sun; perhaps, if there's an air bubble there just right, I might see the Death Star, or if there's a pattern behind the blot, I might see a dime.

Now, you can disagree with that all you want. But ... if you're going to tell me you see Mickey Mouse in the blot, I'm going to wonder where the hell you're getting that. Where are the ears? The nose? The hands and feet? The goofy red lederhosen?

And you're flabbergasted that I don't see what you see, and yet you're unwilling to tell me how it is you see what you see.

For all the words you've written, Wes, the only thing you've really lacked in your hateful pursuit of me is a point. Maybe you think you've got one, but you're not making much of an effort to make it clear. All I know is that you're angry about something, and you have been for a while, and it leads you to hate me and carry on this way.

You're running the fucking Q course dipshit? FUCK YOU. YOU DON'T MAKE MY ASSESSMENTS FOR ME, GET IT FUCKNUT? That is a large part of your smarmy little problem. You somehow think you're entitled?

You've proven yourself of dubious reading skills and carry an attitude problem which makes you sincerely predictable. There's nothing surprising about your assessments, as I'm already aware of the dishonest basis upon which you make them. Hence, you are demonstrably and supremely unqualified to decide what I am thinking.

You can be offended that I don't find you qualified to decide what I'm thinking, but Fuck you. You don't make my assessments for me, get it fucknut? is actually a response that should be reserved for a different circumstance.

No, I didn't make your assessment for you, Wes. I told you that your assessments are as worthless as your hatred.

Seriously, if you're going to bother cussing me out, at least learn to read well enough to know what you're cussing me out for.

After the number of words you've spent ensuring that I do, it's difficult for me to take your request seriously.

Oh, poor you. Right, Wes. We're back to this again? That I somehow can force you to do something?

Nonetheless, hang on to that point of yours for just a moment.

Gee tiassa, you said before that I didn't even know what I was talking about right.. if so, how is it that I could have a basis for complaint right? I mean, I'm just making shit up because I hate you right? Obviously I don't have a basis for complaint to be undermined then right?

All that for nothing, Wes? Toss a coin for me, Wes: Are you actually lacking reading skills or are you letting your hatred color your perception and judgment?

Wes, you undermine your own basis for complaint by advocating the position that tells people to turn the page and move on when they're offended. Hence, regardless of how you think you're "victimized," regardless of your paranoid delusions of being forced to respond to me (and dishonestly at that), you need to turn the page, move on, and feel better about yourself.

And it would work out well for both of us; you wouldn't need to go out of your way to try to agitate me, and I would save the relatively minor expenditure of swatting your attitude problem like it was a gnat. In addition, we could spare our fellow users these long and drawn out tantrums of yours, and perhaps, for once, despite your best efforts to the contrary, we can make some sort of progress around here.

What if my hate serves a purpose? What if in this instance, it is warrented? What if for instance, hating you keeps me on gaurd and sharp when I know you're around, such that I will not be accosted by you?

Wes, you feel accosted by someone disagreeing with you. I know you worked hard to set up that tantrum of yours in the Economics thread, but what a waste! And all because of your hatred, Wes.

It makes you irrational. It makes you weak. Strangely, and thanks in part to South Park, I recall the gawky young dude in Red Dawn scratching at his rifle stock; maybe his hate kept him warm, but it did burn him up in the end.

What if my hate keeps me suspicious of your motivations and as such, allows me to keep you from poisoning the minds of those you would infect with your disgusting perspective?

I would say you make me far too important in the grand scheme of things.

I chose to judge a piece of shit who has repeatedly lied and misrepresented about everthing I've ever said to him. I chose to judge a jackass who (for the nth time) was calling someone I like a "hater" and "inflammatory" because the stick up his ass broke his record some time ago. I chose to judge you because you told someone I respect to kill themselves, be it an off-handed comment or not. I judge you and I think you are a despicable ass.

Well, I hope the expenditure of energy and time is worth it to you. I hope you do manage to feel a little better about yourself, but hatred rarely if ever actually accomplishes that.

Why in the fucking world do you think I give a snot what you think of my insults?

Because in addition to the lack of creativity in your contrarian assaults, there is a lack of creativity in your insults. Hell, it might as well be two years ago and you might as well be telling the jackass to talk to the wall.

I don't mind cover songs. Band of Susans does a nifty "Guitar Trio," MBV tears up "Map Ref," Boiled in Lead makes a career out of innovating traditional material--their "Twa Corbies" is mesmerizing; their cover of "Over Under Sideways Down" is hilarious; they play a mean "Go! Move! Shift!" but honestly, they could have done without the Springsteen cover. And that last brings up the other side. Tiffany should never have covered Tommy James or the Beatles; Roger Daltry and George Michael both should have let the sun go down; I only wish more people had heard Kik Tracee's cover of "Mrs. Robinson," or Sanctuary's cover of "White Rabbit."

Some cover songs should never have been recorded.

Likewise, I don't know how many times I've seen this routine before. The number of people who have complained over time in ways very similar to yours does tell me something, but it's not particularly complimentary to the complaining parties. Seriously--an arbitrary beginning, lots of anger and cussing, rubber-glue attempts to turn tables, and throughout a lack of any coherent point or any evidence to give weight to the opinionated horsepucky they keep turning out.

I admit, you fooled me. For the most of our association, I thought our differences really were simple issues of communication. So congratulations, it actually took me until the last couple of months to catch on and then accept that I really was seeing what I was seeing.

But most people who consider a bombastic argument with me to be a way to raise their own self-esteem generally tip their hands earlier.

Nonetheless, it's no more advisable than the "Yakkity-Yak" rap at the beginning of Book of Love. (Thankfully, I can't remember who recorded that atrocity.)

I'll be happy to help you sort through all of it if you can come clean and cut your bullshit hypocracy.

I'll pass. I don't ever want to spend my existence so frightened as you behave.

I "borrowed it from them"

Well, you have this habit of latching onto words that other people are using and then use the words over and over again. Most recently, "asshat" and "jackass."

Tribal dominance?

Well it has been a spectacular show you've put on. Any topic, any time; you seem willing to take issue with me whenever there's a crowd.

Of course, "tribal dominance" is just one possibility. Your repeated pointless assaults do remind me of any number of mating-season power struggles between mammalian males.

But you're right. It is doubtful. Because you would be aiming at the wrong target. (I wouldn't know what the right one is, aside from the default to our fearless leader.)

More than likely, the irrationality you're demonstrating is rooted in the ideologically violent hatred you seem to be allowing to dictate the form and content of your posts.

My words are wasted on you no matter what I say I'm sure, but as long as I've decided to deal with you - I'll do it on my terms . If that includes reminding you very frequently of what a dipshit jackass asshat you are... then I will do so.

Are you proud of yourself? Are you going to tell your children bedtime stories of your heroic war against the evil Tiassa?

Face your hypocracy or my slurs. It's your choice bitch.

It's hard to face my own reflection when you hold up a painting of yourself and tell me I'm looking in a mirror.

It would have been nice if you could have shown some of that hypocrisy instead of just complaining that it apparently existed. It would have been nice, as well, if you could have demonstrated a reading comprehension that was not thoroughly invested in such a narrow hatred.

You can either deal with yourself or continue to attempt to define yourself through me. That, Wes, is your own choice.

Look at you squirm. Hey, you're sweating too.

At least now I know you're not dead.

 

[Zarkov]

>> **Enters room briefly, overcome by the smell of charred flesh rushes quickly for the exit. Carnage is overwhelming.**

Arrrrrrrrggghhhhhh, I'm outa here ------------------------------------>

 

[spuriousmonkey]

1. You pointed out obvious & apparent work of subtle evolution.
2. You extra-polated this as a proof of 'orgin of species' as against creation.
3. And then you argued, if the 'creationists' do not accept your 'logical' proof of 'orgins' then they are forbidden & not to talk of heridity.

Most of the creationists, obviously don't agree with (2), the very bone of contention (whether it is right or wrong), but have no serious problem with (1). And hence your demand appears to be arrogant since it does not prove anything from the POV of creationists. For them, its like siezing the meagre property of the poor for the crime of withholding a fat tax that 'he could not pay'.

Your arguments don't seem to matter (if I put it bluntly) since creationism is not science.

Or did I misunderstood your point?

 

[everneo]

I think you have good points everneo, which might summarize the asshat's point in a much less inflammatory and much more succinct way.

I too wonder why Tiassa was weaving a web rather than strike it short. May be his writer part wants to elaborate a theme.

Though I agree that you are correct, I still don't think the topic was intentionally inflammatory. I think this is a verbalization of Lou's attempts to understand the issues interacting here. Pretty much anything that is posted can be interpreted as inflammatory.

Thanks, Wes. But that topic was not unintentional. Lou always wants to take a loo at humans who are skeptic of evolution's way especially back to orgins. Inflammatory or not, it is mischievious in total.. anyway a trial like this is far fetched, IMO. Debunking in that thread itself and moving on would have been sufficient. Tiassa has his own ways as Lou has his own.