Insulting one's allies - to what end?

I understand some black people use something to lighten their skin so its not ‘black’, it’s a personal choice.
If by “ Orange felon “ you mean Trump, is that a personal attack on his choice of skin colour ?
Just asking.
Yes.
Just saying. ;)
 
He is trying to squeeze it in before Trump takes office was my point and he will not be happy about that. Any Mauritius are holding out for a better deal last time I check, he may run out of time to finalize.
Ah, yes. Barely a case of sabre-rattling, though. Just dealing with the issue with the relevant people at the time, is it not? ;) Sure, Trump is undoubtedly going to reject any deal that Biden had approved, even if just to play to his base of saying how awful Biden was for approving such a horrible deal, and how he can get a far better deal etc.
Mauritius were lined up to agree the deal today, but it's been put on hold, it seems:

But, as said, I see this as vastly different to threatening invasion of an ally. :)
 
Keep in mind that he's been having some trouble lately. He is perceived to be playing second fiddle to Musk and there is nothing he hates more. His AG pick turned out to be a pedophile and he is hoping no one talks about that much. And now he has very public problems with Hegseth.

Much of what he's doing is simply to distract people from the pedophilia thing or the second-fiddle thing. If they are talking about him and not Musk or Gaetz he is happy, and has succeeded.
Based on the initial vetting session with Congress, Hegseth will get through, as no Republicans seemed to object to his dodgy past (he kept claiming allegations against him were "anonymous smears" but also tried to paint the picture of himself as a reformed character) or inexperience.

However, it's quite possible that the BurgerBoy is trying to shift the news from the fact that he won't be able to achieve many of his key campaign pledges, such as reducing prices, ending the war in Ukraine etc. I think the second-fiddle thing to Musk is a hoot, and would love to see them have a very public and volatile split, with both childishly seeking revenge on the other in their own way: X v Truth Social etc.
 
I feel a little guilty for this one because I was too lazy to go back and read strings relating to this. So, my apologies. I have trouble with Tiassa's posts, reading them.
I tend to skim because I find them tedious on the whole

I actually tried to some modest extent to decrypt this thread, but it seems to be entrenched in a web of interpersonal histories and layers of homegrown obfuscation. Not saying that there is no occurrence of the jargon used in official academic mystification. But it is perhaps so interbred with local eccentricities and accumulated grudges that the keys for unlocking the former are somewhat ineffective -- or render highly suspect these attempted unscramblings slash interpretations of the applicable passages. ;)
_
 
Sarkus:

You served up exactly the sort of response I predicted and expected from you. Repetitive, pedantic and morally blind. There's no point wasting further time on most of it.
I don't post here or reply to people based on character, but on what they write.
I think that assessing character is not something you're good at, and not something you consider important. There's probably nothing you can do about that, I suppose.

It would be worth keeping in mind that other people do consider such things important, however. Why they think it is important will probably remain a mystery to you, but don't just assume that it isn't important because you don't value it.
You should try that sometime, because at the moment you seem to have this massive Tiassa-sized chip on your shoulder, and a Tiassa-shaped hole in your brain.
You really are quite clueless about what has gone down between myself and Tiassa, aren't you?

Probably, you're also oblivious to how hurtful your mischaracterisation would be if I wasn't aware of your limitations when it comes to this sort of thing.

You probably shouldn't insert yourself into the middle of things you clearly don't understand.

When you're involved it's never your fault. Funny, that.
You're really all at sea, aren't you? The only response you can think of is to copy what I wrote to you. You lack the capacity for self-examination in certain areas.

You're a smart guy. You must surely have noticed a pattern in other interactions you have had, with other people? You just don't care, because they must be wrong?
And he appears to be renting space in your head free of charge, given that you can't even contemplate anyone else having anything to do with him, including, it seems, trying to summarise his post, without judging that person somehow guilty by association.
Again with the parroting of something I wrote. Parrot because you don't understand what it means, but you think it must make for a good insult.

For your information: yes, Sarkus, I have been thinking about Tiassa more than usual over the past few days. He grabbed my attention by doing something that - if you are aware of it at all - you consider entirely unimportant. But, see, there is an issue about behaviour, and behaviour reflects character. Even yours does, whether you're aware of it or not.

You probably shouldn't try insulting people on the basis of things that are clearly beyond your grasp. You're way out of your depth when you do that. Best stick to your usual pendantic insistence that you can't ever be wrong; I think that works more effectively for you.

Aw, diddums needs a hug.
Cluelessly out of your depth.
It's all about you, isn't it. James R has been hurt by Tiassa.
Actually, no, it isn't all about me. You haven't noticed, have you?
Everyone must therefore have a bad view of Tiassa! Anyone who doesn't is also bad!
You think Tiassa's a great, upstanding guy, I suppose?

Or, more likely, you simply have no opinion about him or his character. After all, such matters are unimportant. Right?
There's nothing to fool you with, James R. You're paranoid.
Amateur psychology is not your strong suit, Sarkus. You're clueless when it comes to that stuff. Stick to what you're good at, because you just look silly when you try to psychoanalyse. It's an empty performance. I can tell that there's nothing going on under the surface.
You constantly assume bad faith.
You should be more specific. Do I constantly assume bad faith from Tiassa, for instance? Yes, I do, because there's constant bad faith there.

Do I assume bad faith from you? Yes, I do, because you remember getting all riled up by me in the past and you're constantly on the lookout for points you think you can score against me.

It's not paranoia when people are actually out to get you, Sarkus.
It is unimportant, James R.
As expected, from you. After all, why would somebody's character be important? Eh?
We've been through this before. Just because you think it is important, and even if you manage to convince others of that, doesn't make it important for everyone.
I completely understand why it is not important to you, believe me.

Don't delude yourself that you're educating me on emotions or ethics, Sarkus. You must surely be aware that you're out of your depth on such things?
Stop crying foul, stop seeing bad faith where there is none, and enough with playing the victim.
Is there ever bad faith, Sarkus? Does it matter if there is?

"Oh, I've been slighted by that evil Tiassa! Everyone must know! Everyone must feel so sorry for me! Boo hoo! Everyone must treat Tiassa as I want them to!"
Clueless.
At no point did I say that I was fucking off.
I was joking, of course. I know you can't ever stop yourself. But we'll stop again, once I'm done with you for this round.
You tell me, James R? Are we done?
I don't think we are. After all, you're bursting to post a reply to this, now, aren't you?
I'll stop when you stop harassing me, lying, making false inferences, and making unwarranted assumptions. If you can do that...?
We could go round and round on this, Sarkus, never making progress, because you're stuck. So, what will happen is that we'll go for a couple more posts each, then I'll call it quits, because if I don't then I know that you can't stop yourself and this will be endless. Wait and see if I'm right.

You have issues with him, James R.
I do.
That much you've made abundantly clear at every opportunity.
Not at every opportunity, no. But you don't pay attention to such things. Why would you? They aren't important to you.
As has he about you.
The difference is that his issues are essentially imaginary. He's so caught up in the web of lies he has created that he probably believes them himself, these days. My issues, on the other hand, go to behaviour as evidence of character. It's an important difference, but one that is clearly above your pay grade.

Don't worry yourself. It's not important to you.
I honestly couldn't care less...
See?

... and I'm sorry you're not the centre of my world that I have any sympathy for you.
You're not in the least bit sorry.

Why lie about that? Who do you think you're fooling, Sarkus?

Your behaviour when it comes to this sort of thing is entirely performative. Below the surface, there's actually nothing going on.

I. Couldn't. Care. Less.
That's true. You should stop at that, rather than adding lies about how you're sorry and such.
I will treat Tiassa's post as I find them, and ignore, as I do in most people's posts, stuff that I don't care about.
Naturally. How could you do otherwise?
Now, shall we please return to the thread topic?
I highly doubt you will, but we'll see.
Or do you want to continue trying to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in?
Utterly clueless. You're not even sure what is happening here, are you?
 
Last edited:
Yet more of the same dishonest bullshit from you, James R. Nothing I haven't come to expect.
You served up exactly the sort of response I predicted and expected from you. Repetitive, pedantic and morally blind. There's no point wasting further time on most of it.
And yet you do. Go figure.
I think that assessing character is not something you're good at, and not something you consider important. There's probably nothing you can do about that, I suppose.
You're making this all about character, James R, to the point that it no longer matters what people write. I don't have the same opinion of Tiassa as you. And now you try to disparage me for not having that same view. For what it's worth, James R, your assessment of character is woeful in most cases. With regard me it is laughable. But you're too entrenched and blinkered to realise, and have "main character" syndrome at this site.
It would be worth keeping in mind that other people do consider such things important, however. Why they think it is important will probably remain a mystery to you, but don't just assume that it isn't important because you don't value it.
It would be worth keeping in mind that other people do not consider such things important. Why they think they are not will probably remain a mystery to you, but don't assume that it is important to them just because you value it.
You really are quite clueless about what has gone down between myself and Tiassa, aren't you?
See, this is a prime example of you dishonesty shifting the issue here from you having a go at me, to the issue between you and Tiassa.
Your issue with Tiassa is irrelevant to you having a go at me for simply summarising his post. Don't you get that, or are you too busy trying to play the victim.

I no longer care about your spat with Tiassa. What does that have to do with me summarising his post and you criticising me for doing so??
If you can't answer that question, ask yourself what the fuck you are actually going on about, because it is not relevant to that issue.
Probably, you're also oblivious to how hurtful your mischaracterisation would be if I wasn't aware of your limitations when it comes to this sort of thing.
For fuck's sake, James R. If you feel mischaracterisations hurt you, then, here's an idea: stop trying to characterise other people. You are woeful at it. You imagine you're not, but you are. If you think you're hurt by such mischaracterisations then try and have some empathy for those you mischaracterise. Oh, but wait, you think you're good at it, so you couldn't possibly hurt people, right?
Pathetic.
You probably shouldn't insert yourself into the middle of things you clearly don't understand
I DIDN'T!
FFS James R, you had a go at me for treating Tiassa's post the way I would treat anyone else's. It has been YOU that has inserted himself in the middle of that, to continue your issue with Tiassa in front of us all.
I am the innocent party here, but you're simply too blinkered to see that.
Seriously, you're pathetic.


I'll ignore the irrelevant crap you can't help but post, your pleas to victimhood, your "main character" syndrome, but importantly your utter failure to grasp that it was YOU who inserted themself between me and others, not me between you and Tiassa.
Try and comprehend that.
Try and also comprehend that I couldn't give a shit about your issue with Tiassa. Not many here do. You feel you're the victim of his behaviour but that is no excuse for you interjecting yourself between me and others posters, to try and poison the well against him.
If he's breaking the rules, moderate him.

So, tell me, what did I actually do wrong here, James R, what was in my post that you felt it important to interject and try to poison the well, and insult me, and harass me, and troll me, and derail this thread for?
Tell me, or go fuck right off back to the hole you're continuing to dig for yourself, and from which you can only extricate yourself from by employing dishonest means.
Utterly clueless. You're not even sure what is happening here, are you?
For the last time, James R, I have done nothing wrong, nothing to warrant your harassment, your trolling. Where in the forum rules is it stated that one can not summarise another's post for others?
That is what this is about. Not your spat with Tiassa, although you have tried so dishonestly to make it about that.

So stop with the dishonesty. Stop with the harassment, the trolling. Get a real clue as to what I have taken issue with about what you did, not what you want it to be about.
The posting history in this thread speaks for itself, and you are not on the right side of it. Yet again.
 
Last edited:
I think we'll go round one more time after this, Sarkus, then I'll stop.
Yet more of the same dishonest bullshit from you, James R.
Stop lashing out. Nothing I said was dishonest. Nor was it bullshit. You keep digging holes for yourself.
And yet you do.
No. I focused on the interesting stuff and ignored the repetitive drone. Didn't you notice?
You're making this all about character, James R, to the point that it no longer matters what people write.
Don't get me wrong. It matters to me what people write. To you? I'm thinking not so much. What was it you were saying about "main character syndrome"? Is that unconscious projection?
I don't have the same opinion of Tiassa as you.
I'm fascinated to learn what you think of Tiassa. You avoided the question last time I asked. Will you tell me this time?
And now you try to disparage me for not having that same view.
No. I merely noted that you're a poor judge of character. I believe I even said that it's probably not your fault.
For what it's worth, James R, your assessment of character is woeful in most cases.
You haven't given any signs that you're in any sort of position to judge that kind of thing.
It would be worth keeping in mind that other people do not consider such things important. Why they think they are not will probably remain a mystery to you, but don't assume that it is important to them just because you value it.
You're reflecting my words again, because you don't understand what I was getting at or why it might be important. That's a blind spot you have there, Sarkus.
See, this is a prime example of you dishonesty shifting the issue here from you having a go at me, to the issue between you and Tiassa.
You don't see the relevance. I understand.
Your issue with Tiassa is irrelevant to you having a go at me for simply summarising his post.
Your "summary" made the faulty assumption that he was telling the truth, like I said. I corrected you on that.

Don't you get that, or are you too busy trying to play the victim.
I'm not playing the victim when it comes to Tiassa's stalking and such. I am the victim. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this has all flown over your head.
I no longer care about your spat with Tiassa.
You never cared about that. Why lie about it and pretend you did? Are you trying to give your readers the impression that you understand what my "spat" with Tiassa is about?

When you're this far out of your depth, don't you think it might be better to keep your mouth shut?
What does that have to do with me summarising his post and you criticising me for doing so??
See above, and my previous posts.
For fuck's sake, James R. If you feel mischaracterisations hurt you, then, here's an idea: stop trying to characterise other people.
Do you feel that mischaracterisations by other people might hurt me? Does that concern you at all? More generally, when people mischaracterise other people, is that a problem, or not really? Is it only a problem if you're the target?

You are woeful at it. You imagine you're not, but you are.
You consistently demonstrate that you're in no position to judge such things. You put on a performance to give the impression that you imagine you are in such a position, but it's performative. I don't think you really believe it. Are you aware that this is what you're doing, or is there self-delusion in play, too?

If you think you're hurt by such mischaracterisations then try and have some empathy for those you mischaracterise.
Do you think I could be hurt by mischaracterisations? Would it be understandable if I felt hurt by somebody mischaracterising me? Would it be something you could excuse, or are emotions like that a bad thing?

Personally, I try not to mischaracterise people. See, I think that such things matter.
Oh, but wait, you think you're good at it, so you couldn't possibly hurt people, right?
I'm well aware that I have the capacity to hurt people. Are you? Does it matter to you if you do?

FFS James R, you had a go at me for treating Tiassa's post the way I would treat anyone else's.
Perhaps you should not have treated Tiassa's post the way you would treat anyone else's, in these particular circumstances. But that didn't occur to you, did it? That doesn't occur to you.

It has been YOU that has inserted himself in the middle of that, to continue your issue with Tiassa in front of us all.
You're clueless. You actually can't understand what's going on, in this regard.
I am the innocent party here, but you're simply too blinkered to see that.
Sarkus, believe me, I understand exactly what your perspective is.

Has it occurred to you that - just maybe - you might be a little blinkered when it comes to this kind of thing? I doubt that it has.
Seriously, you're pathetic.
Ah, the insult. The last refuge of the man who doesn't actually understand what he's trying to discuss.
I'll ignore the irrelevant crap you can't help but post...
Nothing I posted was irrelevant. But I get why you would want to ignore a lot of it.

... your pleas to victimhood, your "main character" syndrome...
Clueless and tone deaf.

Try and comprehend that.
Have you tried? How did that go for you?
Try and also comprehend that I couldn't give a shit about your issue with Tiassa.
Was it not clear from my previous post that I already comprehended that?
Not many here do.
You should not presume to speak for "many here". It's not like you've polled them.

Are you feeling like you need additional support from the "many"? I'm not surprised.
You feel you're the victim of his behaviour...
Is that a justified feeling, do you think? Or not? Or can you not decide?

... but that is no excuse for you interjecting yourself between me and others posters, to try and poison the well against him.
Actually, I'd prefer not to have to mention him. But I think that, ironically, I'm more concerned for his feelings on this than you are. It doesn't seem to bother you that you - or I - might say something that upsets him.

If he's breaking the rules, moderate him.
You can be sure that I will. I do what I say I will do. Have you noticed?
So, tell me, what did I actually do wrong here, James R, what was in my post that you felt it important to interject and try to poison the well, and insult me, and harass me, and troll me, and derail this thread for?
Didn't I already tell you, several times? I think I did.
Tell me, or go fuck right off back to the hole you're continuing to dig for yourself, and from which you can only extricate yourself from by employing dishonest means.
You're hopelessly out of your depth. You should just stop. But you won't, will you?

Well, one more round, if you like. I think after that I'll probably be sick of you again. Because your next post is sure to be more of the same clueless posturing.
Where in the forum rules is it stated that one can not summarise another's post for others?
Clueless. And disingenous as well. Ho hum.

That is what this is about. Not your spat with Tiassa, although you have tried so dishonestly to make it about that.
What was it that you commented on, regarding a post of Tiassa's? What was Tiassa referring to in his post, that you took upon yourself to explain for everybody's benefit?

If his post wasn't about our "spat", as you put it, what do you think it was about?
So stop with the dishonesty.
Can't stop what I haven't started.
Stop with the harassment, the trolling.
I'm very happy to stop if you stop. I'll again leave it to you to decide whether you want to go another round of back-and-forth before I call a halt. You could stop now, hypothetically. Frankly, I don't think you have the level of self-control to do it.
 
Last edited:
I think we'll go round one more time after this, Sarkus, then I'll stop.
No, you won't. I don't think you have that level of self-control.
Stop lashing out. Nothing I said was dishonest. Nor was it bullshit.
It is nearly all dishonest from you, JamesR. Deliberately fallacious in that you have tried to move it from your trolling of me for simply summarising Tiassa's post, to now being about your issue with Tiassa.
You're not stupid enough to be unaware of this, thus it is deliberate. Thus dishonest. Simples.
Don't get me wrong. It matters to me what people write. To you? I'm thinking not so much.
Yet here you are having ignored in your initial troll what I actually wrote. Ironic. And here am I trying to get you to focus on what I wrote, and not on the baggage you brought with you.

What was it you were saying about "main character syndrome"? Is that unconscious projection?
No, it's a seemingly adequate description of what you are portraying.

I'm fascinated to learn what you think of Tiassa. You avoided the question last time I asked. Will you tell me this time?
Not here, because it is not relevant to what I wrote. If you're really that keen to know, send me a PM and I'll let you know, but I would also insist on copying him into that PM so that I'm not talking behind his back.
No. I merely noted that you're a poor judge of character. I believe I even said that it's probably not your fault.
It's all irrelevant JamesR. You are disparaging me yet even above you admit you don't know what my view is of Tiassa.
You're trolling. You're not focussing on what I had written but on your baggage. Stop that.
You haven't given any signs that you're in any sort of position to judge that kind of thing.
I just need to read your mischaracterisations.

You're reflecting my words again, because you don't understand what I was getting at or why it might be important. That's a blind spot you have there, Sarkus.
No, I'm reflecting your words to demonstrate how pathetic your comments are. Here, I'll do it again:
I'm reflecting your words again because you don't understand what I was getting at or why it might be important.
You don't see the relevance. I understand.

Because it's not. I summarised a post. You trolled. Everything you want to bring in about your spat with Tiassa is irrelevant. Get it yet?
Your "summary" made the faulty assumption that he was telling the truth, like I said. I corrected you on that.
First you claim it was implied, and now you're claiming it was assumed. It was actually neither, no matter how much you wish it was. You read into it what you wanted to, because of the baggage you bring to anything Tiassa-related.
So stop with the bullshit.

I'm not playing the victim when it comes to Tiassa's stalking and such. I am the victim. It doesn't surprise me one bit that this has all flown over your head.
"Playing the victim" includes playing up to the fact that you are the victim. You keep going on about it, at every opportunity. That is also "playing the victim". And in this instance you have turned my reaction to your trolling (#67) into an opportunity once again to play the victim.
It's boring. And as I have said before, I no longer care about your spat with Tiassa. Stop trying to insert your grievance into everything.
You never cared about that. Why lie about it and pretend you did? Are you trying to give your readers the impression that you understand what my "spat" with Tiassa is about?
I did care. For a moment. Now I no longer do. And I don't write posts for "readers" in the same way you do. I write it for the benefit of the one I'm replying to. In this case you.
When you're this far out of your depth, don't you think it might be better to keep your mouth shut?
There is no depth here. All that baggage is irrelevant. You keep appealing to it. Why can't you comprehend that it is irrelevant.
I summarised Tiassa's post. You trolled me. Your baggage is irrelevant.


Do you feel that mischaracterisations by other people might hurt me? Does that concern you at all? More generally, when people mischaracterise other people, is that a problem, or not really? Is it only a problem if you're the target?
You have clearly been hurt, yet you keep mischarterising others, with no apparent empathy for what your mischaracterisations might do. Oh, but if course, you don't mischaracterise, right? That's only what other people do about you?

But note that there's only one person on this site that keeps going on and on and on and on about how they've been mischaracterised, how they've been hurt, how the other person is evil and an odious little man. And here you've even created an opportunity from nothing. Bravo.


I'll skip a few ironic bits that aren't worth responding to.

Perhaps you should not have treated Tiassa's post the way you would treat anyone else's, in these particular circumstances. But that didn't occur to you, did it? That doesn't occur to you.
WTF??
If you have such an issue with Tiassa that you think other people should not treat his posts like they treat anyone else's, then either ban him or give up your moderating duties, 'cos frankly comments like this make you a disgrace.
Don't bring baggage to discussion. Yet you can't stop doing just that.

Are you saying, right here and now, that we should not treat Tiassa's posts like anyone else's? If we shouldn't only in particular circumstances, what are those circumstances? Is summarising his posts for others, while passing no comment as to the veracity of its content, forbidden?
Please, let us know, because at the moment you're coming across as a petulant child.
You're clueless. You actually can't understand what's going on, in this regard.
I don't care! I do understand but I don't care! You're confusing the two. It does you no favours, but at least it keeps you able to talk about being the victim.

Sarkus, believe me, I understand exactly what your perspective is.
So you accept that trolling me was inappropriate, and that everything else you've done has been irrelevant and just an excuse to further voice your spat with Tiassa?

Has it occurred to you that - just maybe - you might be a little blinkered when it comes to this kind of thing? I doubt that it has.
You're still talking about your spat with Tiassa. It is irrelevant here..


Ah, the insult. The last refuge of the man who doesn't actually understand what he's trying to discuss.
Hypocrisy much?

Nothing I posted was irrelevant. But I get why you would want to ignore a lot of it.
Not irrelevant to you, but irrelevant to what I posted that you had issue with me for. Try to keep up.
That you don't recognise it as irrelevant really doesn't do you any favours.

You should not presume to speak for "many here". It's not like you've polled them.
Actually, the question had been asked previously, if I recall, and most couldn't care beyond it spilling out into public.
Didn't I already tell you, several times? I think I did.
No, you told me of the (faulty) inference you made, then changed it and (unwarranted) assumption, but at no point have you based it on, well, reality of what I actually wrote. Can you do that, please?


What was it that you commented on, regarding a post of Tiassa's? What was Tiassa referring to in his post, that you took upon yourself to explain for everybody's benefit?
I summarised his supposedly "impenetrable" post, how he had answered exchemists question already, albeit in a redacted manner iakin to the Pentagon etc. and the how he contextualised my original question from the OP.
At no point did I assume it imply not assume that his redaction was warranted or not, or anything else regarding that part of the post, simply that this is what Tiassa had done.

Everything else has stemmed from you reading into that what simply is not there, no matter how much you want there to be.

If his post wasn't about our "spat", as you put it, what do you think it was about?
I don't care! That wasn't the point of my post!! That's just you wanting to keep pushing it on the rest of us!

This is all on you. The posting history in this thread supports that. Your spat with Tiassa is irrelevant to this issue. Deal with it.
 
So far as I can see, people have been warned of moderation if they troll, or abuse the forum for pursuit of personal vendettas.

I am unaware of anyone being threatened into silence for expressing an opinion on a thread topic. Can you cite an instance?
It's entirely dependent upon how one interprets these words (the bolded portion)--what constitutes a "threat", particularly--but in some respects this very thread illustrates the idea that certain things should not be talked about or addressed. At the same time, there's consideration of what constitutes "troll(ing" and the "pursuit of personal vendettas". As to the former, has anyone ever adequately defined "trolling"? I don't think so, and, honestly, I'm still unclear as to whether or not trolling is necessarily conscious and willful: does the trolling party have to be aware that they're trolling for it to actually be trolling? Is steering a matter off-topic trolling if the tangent can be established as in some way relevant or pertinent to the topic, however peripherally? But I think even the latter is somewhat problematic, and I would ask of it the same questions.

And I'm not gonna defend my awkward constructions here--you know, "I would ask of it". It's not like I'm planning on publishing this in an esteemed journal like People Magazine or Us Weekly. (In the US, those are widely regarded (by whom?) as definitive and authoritative sources.)
 
Just curious...do moderators not remove offtopic posts here, or shunt them into separate threads in some sort of grievance forum or argument room or whatever? Recent posts here seem like candidates for such. Never seen a science website where a personal dispute is allowed to go on at such mind boggling length and utterly displace the topic.
 
Just curious...do moderators not remove offtopic posts here, or shunt them into separate threads in some sort of grievance forum or argument room or whatever? Recent posts here seem like candidates for such. Never seen a science website where a personal dispute is allowed to go on at such mind boggling length and utterly displace the topic.
One of the policies I have as a mod in another forum is to have a fixed length for a given argument. Once the same things have been said for three exchanges I just stop replying. The other guy then generally gives up too. Sometimes they even decide that they have "won" which is fine with me.
 
Just curious...do moderators not remove offtopic posts here, or shunt them into separate threads in some sort of grievance forum or argument room or whatever? Recent posts here seem like candidates for such. Never seen a science website where a personal dispute is allowed to go on at such mind boggling length and utterly displace the topic.
There is only one active moderator... and he's the one that instigated this debacle with his initial trolling. But, hey, it is what it now is. ;)
 
One of the policies I have as a mod in another forum is to have a fixed length for a given argument. Once the same things have been said for three exchanges I just stop replying. The other guy then generally gives up too. Sometimes they even decide that they have "won" which is fine with me.
I would broker a cease fire if you guys voted for me to do it....
 
Sarkus:
No, you won't. I don't think you have that level of self-control.
I see you're reduced again to parroting my words, because you're not quite sure what to do.

As for the self-control thing, we'll see who has the self-control. As I said previously, this will be my last post in yours and my latest little unimportant "spat", Sarkus. You won't be able to stop yourself from posting a response to this, but I'm content for you to have the last word.

Please restrict your final post about me and how terrible I am, in this discussion, to one post (*multiple parts are okay, given that this one ended up split over three posts due to the character limit.). If you're planning on continuing to whine after I'm no longer replying, that will just cause more disruption to the thread than you we have, so don't do that, okay?

Forgive me if I skip over some of your repetitive baggage in what follows, but I think I've mostly even covered that, for what it's worth.

Not here, because it is not relevant to what I wrote. If you're really that keen to know, send me a PM and I'll let you know, but I would also insist on copying him into that PM so that I'm not talking behind his back.
I assumed you would bug out without venturing an opinion on the relevant moral question. Thanks for proving me right, again. Go on, tell me again that you don't care. It's all you can do, isn't it?
It's all irrelevant JamesR. You are disparaging me yet even above you admit you don't know what my view is of Tiassa.
I asked you to tell me. You couldn't even construct something that you thought would come across convincingly enough to assure your readers that you have a view on the moral question, as it turned out. I didn't think you would be able to.

Go on. Tell me that Tiassa is not important to you, and that I'm not important to you, again. It's all you can manage, isn't it?
You're trolling. You're not focussing on what I had written but on your baggage.
How ironic, coming from you.
No, I'm reflecting your words to demonstrate how pathetic your comments are.
How do you think that's going for you, Sarkus? Do you feel like you've got to the nub of the matter?

Do you feel you've impressed your readers with your insights and your acumen?

You don't think it's at all pathetic that you're simply unable to answer any of the questions I put to you?

Here, I'll do it again:
I'm reflecting your words again because you don't understand what I was getting at or why it might be important.
See what I mean? All you've got is empty repetition, regardless of what I put to you. You don't engage because you can't engage with what I've been saying to you.
Because it's not. I summarised a post. You trolled. Everything you want to bring in about your spat with Tiassa is irrelevant. Get it yet?
You don't understand that yours and my discussion hasn't been about my "spat" with Tiassa, as you put it, for quite a while now, do you? In fact, it was never about that. You're clueless. You keep posting when you should take stock, realise that you aren't following what I'm talking about, and quit while you can still hope to make a semi-graceful exit. Instead, we are subjected to you making a spectacle of yourself again.
First you claim it was implied, and now you're claiming it was assumed. It was actually neither, no matter how much you wish it was.
Here's another direct question for you: do you believe that I am striving to implement a "secret agenda" in how I moderate this forum, as Tiassa has repeatedly claimed, or do you believe that my intentions and aims in moderating are in accordance with what I have publically posted about them on this forum? Or do you have no opinion either way?

I expect you will fail to answer this question. Possibly, you will demur on the grounds that your opinion is "irrelevant" to your current beef with me, or you might find some other excuse, like that you haven't cared to investigate the matter sufficiently to form an opinion either way.

The fact of the matter is: you won't answer this because you don't see the question as important. You don't care what the answer is, and it's unimportant because you don't care and because it doesn't interest you. Moreover, you'll probably preach again about how things that are important to me don't have to be important to you.

But whatever your reason you come up with for failing to answer, it will be another performance.

"Playing the victim" includes playing up to the fact that you are the victim. You keep going on about it, at every opportunity.
Er, no. It doesn't include that.

You're utterly tone deaf when it comes to this sort of thing, Sarkus.

Has Tiassa wronged me, or not? It's a simple "yes/no" question, Sarkus. You really ought to have an opinion on that. But you don't. Right? Why is that?
It's boring. And as I have said before, I no longer care about your spat with Tiassa.
Although this part of your act is repetitive, I will ask you again.

Why do you choose to lie about this?

You're pretending that, at one time in the past, you cared about my "spat" with Tiassa, but then you stopped caring.

Why the performance, Sarkus? You never cared about it. It was never important to you. You never felt compelled to give a damn, either way, about it.

So why the lie? Are you trying to soften your image in the minds of your readers? Are you trying to put on a performance of caring about such things?

I'm really interested to find out what your take on your own behaviour is. I'm confident that I have a good handle on what's going on, but how much self-awareness do you have?

Why this lie, Sarkus?

(Go on, pretend the question was never asked, again, or make up an excuse for why you won't answer. It's what I predict you will do, and you keep proving me right, every time.)
 
Last edited:
(Continued .... [Ok, so I went over the 10000 character limit for a single post. But it's still the one post, really. Please feel free to write an equally-lengthy response, Sarkus. I'm sure you've got it in you.])

Stop trying to insert your grievance into everything.
Which grievance would it be that I "insert into everything", Sarkus? Do tell.

This sounds like a gross exaggeration to me - like part of a performance from you.
I did care. For a moment. Now I no longer do.
Why did you care for a moment?

Please explain, so I (and your other readers) can tell this isn't just a performance from you.
And I don't write posts for "readers" in the same way you do.
Is this the first time you have realised that?
I write it for the benefit of the one I'm replying to. In this case you.
Really? How interesting. *chuckle*

It's great to learn that you're honestly trying to help me, Sarkus - that, underneath all that bluster you're really just extending a helping hand to lift me up.

Tell me: how do you think your recent posts have helped me, so far?

Are you teaching me the error of my ways, so that if I try hard I can become a better person in the future by taking your well-meant advice and by copying your lead?

It's so selfless of you to help me like this, Sarkus. I really appreciate it that you've taken so much time and effort to write for my benefit. (In case you missed it: this is sarcasm.)
There is no depth here. All that baggage is irrelevant. You keep appealing to it. Why can't you comprehend that it is irrelevant.
Actually, you've got that backwards, Sarkus. The question you should consider is: why can't you comprehend that it is relevant?
The very fact that you refer to "baggage" while being utterly unable to decide or comment on the moral question at hand shows your lack of comprehension.

You have clearly been hurt, yet you keep mischarterising others, with no apparent empathy for what your mischaracterisations might do.
How have I mischaracterised you, Sarkus?
Oh, but if course, you don't mischaracterise, right?
I try not to. Generally, I try to steel-man other people's arguments. I ask questions to clarify what they meant. I try to make sure I understand what their point of view is. I quote them. I give them every opportunity to correct anything I have misunderstood about their position and their points of view on things.

It's possible that I have fallen short in some instances. I'm always happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken.

That's only what other people do about you?
It's difficult to generalise about that. Certainly, I wouldn't use a word like "only". I'd say that most of the people I regularly interact with do not deliberately mischaracterise me. I tend to avoid people who deliberately mischaracterise me, because that's just rude.

How about you?
But note that there's only one person on this site that keeps going on and on and on and on about how they've been mischaracterised, how they've been hurt, how the other person is evil and an odious little man. And here you've even created an opportunity from nothing. Bravo.
You're tone deaf to how hurtful saying something like that could possibly be, Sarkus.

There you were, just a minute before, talking about how concerned you were about people being mischaracterised, and now here you are deliberately mischaracterising me:

"only one person on this site"
"keeps going on and on and on"
"about how they're been mischaracterized"
"how they've been hurt"
"how the other person is an odious little man" [my emphasis]

And then you give yourself a little cheer at the end, like you've scored a point in a tennis match or something.

I see your problem, Sarkus. Really, I do. But although there's a reason, it doesn't amount to an excuse for your callous behaviour.

I think that, even if you lack the emotional intelligence to see the problem, you're intellectually advanced enough to grasp the edges of the issue. Yet you choose to ignore it? Why?
I'll skip a few ironic bits that aren't worth responding to.
You mean you'll skip direct questions I put to you about emotions and how you interpret them.

I see you, Sarkus. You're not fooling me with your performance. Do you understand?
Exactly. You're all at sea. You're not sure what we're talking about any more.
 
Last edited:
(... phew!)

If you have such an issue with Tiassa that you think other people should not treat his posts like they treat anyone else's, then either ban him or give up your moderating duties, 'cos frankly comments like this make you a disgrace.
Does it matter what I think?

Tell me what you think, Sarkus. Should Tiassa's posts be treated just like anyone else's? Do any of them, in fact, mischaracterise me or my opinions or values? If they do, is that acceptable to you?

Tell me also: why should I give up my "moderating duties" because I have an "issue" with Tiassa (or anybody else)? And why should I give them up for suggesting that, perhaps, Tiassa's posts shouldn't be given a free pass, like you're giving them?

Tell me what is "disgraceful" in my pointing out of Tiassa's appalling behaviour towards me, or in my taking action to prevent its continuation.

I'm all ears.

Go on, Sarkus. School me on the morals of the situation, seeing as you're the expert.

Don't bring baggage to discussion. Yet you can't stop doing just that.
Suppose you're right and I can't. In your opinion, does that disqualify me from participating in conversations here?

Do you always leave your "baggage" behind when you join in a discussion? Or don't you have any baggage, Sarkus? Is baggage more something that other people have, but not you?
Are you saying, right here and now, that we should not treat Tiassa's posts like anyone else's?
It's not clear to me what you mean by "treat"? What's the context?

How do you "treat" Tiassa's posts?

Do all of Tiassa's posts deserve the same "treatment", or is this something that must be decided on a case-by-case basis?

And who is the "anyone else" you're comparing "treatments" with?

It's a big topic. Please explain what you mean.
If we shouldn't only in particular circumstances, what are those circumstances?
Well, let's take one kind of example.

If Tiassa accuses another member of sciforums of advocating for child abuse - or of actually being a child abuser - should his post in which that accusation appears by "treated like anyone's else's" regular post?

Would that be a cicrumstance in which different "treatment" might be justified? Or not?

Tell me, Sarkus.

Is summarising his posts for others, while passing no comment as to the veracity of its content, forbidden?
Do you think it's worth paying some attention to the veracity of the content before you republish said content and comment favourably on it? Or not? Tell me, Sarkus.
Please, let us know, because at the moment you're coming across as a petulant child.
And... there's the inevitable insult. Because this is all you've got, once the performance is over.
I don't care! I do understand but I don't care!
I look forward to you demonstrating your understanding in your next angry post. (But you won't. Go on, prove me right again.)
So you accept that trolling me was inappropriate...
Don't be silly. Read what I wrote: "I understand exactly what your perspective is."

There's nothing in that about trolling or accepting that I did something inappropriate.

Don't create straw men, Sarkus. Be honest.

You're still talking about your spat with Tiassa.
No. You just don't get it. This is all about you, now. It has been for several posts. We're digging down into your "baggage". Didn't you notice?

Hypocrisy much?
*whoosh*. That was the sound of my post flying over your head.
Actually, the question had been asked previously, if I recall, and most couldn't care beyond it spilling out into public.
I'm sure you've missed any commentary on the morality of the situation. After all, that's not important to you.

And, let's face it, there hasn't been much on that, other than from me. The thing is, though, Sarkus: I'll wager that most people here have an opinion on the matter, whereas you apparently have been unable to form one. You don't need to, because it isn't important to you. Right?

You're the outlier, Sarkus. But you imagine you're in a majority. At one level, it's quite interesting to watch. At another, it's a bit sad.
I summarised his supposedly "impenetrable" post, how he had answered exchemists question already, albeit in a redacted manner iakin to the Pentagon etc. and the how he contextualised my original question from the OP.
Did it occur to you that exchemist's characterisation of Tiassa's typically blog-like posting as "impenetrable" might have been more of a dismissal than a careful assessment of the content? No?

I'm sure that exchemist is grateful for having a genius like yourself to do the analysis on his behalf. (In case you missed it: this, too, is sarcasm.)

Everything else has stemmed from you reading into that what simply is not there, no matter how much you want there to be.
Let's hope you take a little more time to think your posts through and that you make yourself clearer next time you pull this type of stunt, then. Because look at the mess you've made, again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top