I am well aware of the power imbalance that comes from being a moderator on this forum, just as you are (or should be). Nobody stops you, either, do they? So you know what that's like, and hopefully you're also aware of the responsibility that goes along with the armor that prevents people from stopping you.
The devil of the detail is actually the word "stops".
James, you can stop me if you choose to.
I cannot stop you even if circumstance were to suggest I must.
You are aware of this, and were when you wrote that.
To remind: Your straw pretenses are not polite; they are, in fact, disruptive, provocative, and rude. You skipped that detail, James. Nobody can stop you from being disruptive, provocative, and rude. Like I said, it doesn't mean certain responses are appropriate, but as other people's frustration builds, there isn't really anything they can do.
Meanwhile, your performance by omission is, well, driven by omission.
I disagree. All indications are that is he either does not know, or else can't bring himself to act like a mature, responsible adult.
And consider what you omitted: It's not going to stop, is it?
Indeed. A point you should reflect on.
I'm sure you think that means something.
†
There is a common saying, rendered differently according to its occasion, but it involves victory and defeat, and something about jaws and snatch. Snatching. I mean, snatching.
Anyway, no, that's not quite what you do. Your version is more like pissing away high ground, or eroding your own foundation. And it can be fascinating to watch.
If we presuppose Arfa Brane isn't simply awry but utterly wrong, there is still a strong possibility that you answered him by burning straw; if your response was fallacious, and led to some typical self-gratification, yeah, that might upset him. By comparison, you can't tell me why he's angry.
So, then, what is it, mass as a number, something about a bottle, time and information—okay, so there is a reason why I
recalled↑ the information anecdote. But if we look back to the
elastic surfaces↗ discussion, that seems to be about something in particular. Do you really not remember what it is? Maybe I'm not much of a scientist, but I still haven't seen the original potsherd and thus,
vis à vis your
reality check↑, a cloud remains over the actual answer.
Like I said in the
sketch↑, it's part of your style. I've seen you do this, before. We've disputed about it, before. It's in your disagreement with Sarkus; it came up in a public dispute with a complaining member last year, an occasion on which you had every high-ground initiative but traded away for vice; it's as ridiculous and even offensive as ever, behavior witnessed and endured for years, and, yes, I've yelled at you about it a lot. It's absurd and disruptive behavior, and if it was a comedy routine I might tell you it still needs work, remind that timing is everything, that the bit can't be forced, and, moreover, at some point people diving into some routine need to come up for air. And that's if. The thing is, at some point I believe you, and you'd still complain about what that means.
It's one thing if Arf said two plus two is five, but if your response is to wag at him over something you imagine about how he makes his tea, then you've smacked him, and perhaps twice, for the wrong reason. And consider that the bit with the bottle looks not so dissimilar from other times when you faltered or struggled with what should have been easy. There was a time when you mislabeled someone you were running around in circles with, and the thing is that while, sure, okay, he's not a Christian, I don't necessarily believe him insofar he was to you in the moment a sort of convenient contrarian who isn't any of the roles he plays, and isn't any of the things he seems to support because he is just protecting against the injustice of its opposition, in this case,
you. That is, maybe it's true, but it's also the point he needed and something he might say even if it was not true. But you got into that moment because you were too focused on your own straw.
And I razz you about the One Thread, sure, but again, you struggled with a trollish bit about pantheism because you were trying to make everything fit a particular discursive template. And, sure, this bit with the bottle was you overdoing it and leaving yourself open to getting knocked like that, and maybe that is what it is, and so what, except then you went and asked, and, sure, we get that it wasn't a genuine question, but inasmuch as you might have some curiosity about my arse, or think I'm riled up, well, consider that we're supposed to believe you cannot discern the difference between Sarkus and Vociferous, or Tiassa and Jan Ardena;
see #154↑. It's true, I don't actually believe you.
Or, kind of like the thread about talking to God, when you said
said↗: "There is no problem with people starting threads on a discussion forum, even if you don't like them". I don't actually believe you really thought that was the problem, because I don't really believe you're actually that stupid. It's not like the irony is complex; that was just you insisting on your straw.
Like I said: There is almost always a problem with your communication; it's part of your style.¹ It's one thing if I have long thought it was a deliberate decision, that you knew, but it's also true that at some point I have no choice but to believe your pretense of unawareness; even still, it's asking a lot to believe you really are that confused, unlucky, incurious, or even stupid. At some point, it seems unlikely that you don't have at least some clue what you're doing; your manner of straw is one of your defining stylistic aspects.
So even as Arf decides whether or not to self-destruct by bashing himself against the rocks, remember, this sort of episode will occur again because you treat people this way.
†
If you wonder why, at this point, I'm even bothering, the obvious joke here is that so am I. But it's also true we've had a couple more occasions to consider the circumstance, and there are a number of issues that can be seen intersecting, here.
And the funny story that goes here has to do with how, after needing only a short second post, I scribbled some paragraphs, never settled on anything, and as time passed the posts fell by the wayside, but this is Sciforums, and passing time has a way, and here we are because that's just how it goes.
Part of the reason I'm bothering is because at some point someone filed a report. That is, apparently somebody thought you would not notice being told to fuck off. And then, well, right. Turns out, the ongoing circumstance has a way of persisting. That point, however, gets a little more complicated, the sort of thing that can easily get pushed aside while we worry about your feelings.
And
#190↑ did ask for some answers, even if at least one challenge simply demanded anew what you had previously been given. Meanwhile, sure, it does not please you when I challenge your behavior, but these performances of yours are extraordinary, or at least they ought to be.
____________________
Notes:
¹ Does the semicolon confuse you? Let us try it this way, then: There is almost always a problem with your communication because a problem with communication is part of your style.
[2/2]
