I've had it with the B&E Moderator calling me a liar

A

adoucette

Caca Occurs
Valued Senior Member
Can SOMETHING be done about this?

I was going to reply to this in the thread it came from, but decided to put it here.

I'm fed up with Billy calling me a liar.

This is the most recent case: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2916350&postcount=84


Billy T said:
it is for your lying, observed by several mods, that consideration has been given to banning you. (I voted against that as you do very good job of searching for fact you can quote.) If the subject comes up again, and it probablly will, I will switch my vote - your searching ability is not worth the agrevation you cause to many.
Click to expand...

Billy can not point to a single lie I've ever told since I've never once written one.

So I'm asking that Billy (or any moderator) produce ONE place where I lied or shut up about it.

If there is any place that someone thinks I lied, then come forward and we'll see if it's true or just a missunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
I'll second that, if it helps. I've only had one or two conversations with Billy, but in my latest one he falsely accused me of misquoting him. Obviously this isn't an infractionable offense, but it does speak to character.
 
And I'll third it. I've had MANY conversations with Billy in the past but I was forced to restrain myself after several STRONG indications that his reading comprehension AND attitude have both deteriorated considerably over the last year or so. He most certainly isn't the person he used to be - sharp as a tack and highly accurate. Sad.:eek:
 
Head first

Adoucette said:

Can SOMETHING be done about this?
Click to expand...

The most logical thing would be to throw you out in the alley.

Billy can not point to a single lie I've ever told since I've never once written one.
Click to expand...

Actually, Arthur, your dishonesty comes when you try to annoy people by harping on tiny things, rewriting their arguments for them in order to support your criticism, and my favorite, the bit where you start screaming about something basic—say, what equals a mathematical difference—and then, when called out on your clearly disingenuous bull droppings, change the asserted basis of your original point in order to claim that in being wrong you were right all the time.

I mean, really, when you tried to do that fiddling with electoral math—you know, trying to replace a-b with (a-b)/b, and all the random idiocy you came up with then—a number of people simply stopped taking you seriously.

And that, in the end, is probably to your benefit. The fewer people who take you seriously, the fewer on staff who will be inclined to pitch you face-first into the gutter.

Indeed, I will go so far as to point out that the only reason you haven't been permanently kicked out onto the dung-heap of history is that the people who otherwise would kick you out have spent a lot of time over the last few years arguing against the standards that should kick you out.

If we applied fairly a precedent set some time ago, I would instruct you to apologize to Billy within twenty-four hours or face a thirty-day suspension.

However, in addition to the faction who disagreed with that little ad hoc policy, there is also the point that that the faction who supported it never really were interested in enforcing it generally; it was just something invented in the moment so that an authority figure could threaten a member for not appreciating him enough.

In other words, that precedent doesn't hold. But I will note it; because there are some important issues afoot, though none you would necessarily recognize.

Meanwhile, I would just remind that you should never think any pretense of your intelligence or honesty is the reason you haven't been kicked out.
 
This is all about Billy, methane production, eating their grass, finger in ass...very stinky subject matter--bound to be a real post-reading pleasure romp.

Billy drew first blood. Billy always draws first blood. Billy was the first into the..."... bet that NG would out-produce EV"....debacle. He expected...no, demanded...others do the research for him.
Arthur got annoyed...understandable.
End of fairy tale...next.


This post sponsored by the "Arthur for B&E Moderator" Pac*

*humor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913 said:
....

8 times in 7 posts, adoucette called Billy a liar.

....
Click to expand...

Billy didn't complain. Arthur did.
One stands up for his integrity. The other lies* silent.


This post sponsored by the "Arthur for B&E Moderator" Pac*

*humor?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. adoucette/Arthur's complaining about being called a liar. Yet he has no problem lie-carpet-bombing. Kinda hypocritical.

See post 5.
Click to expand...

One man's "lie-carpet-bombing" is another man's cluster-bomb-lying".

One is a moderator, who should be careful not to.......embellish without data backup, an the other a.........moderator in waiting.
 
Schoolyard rules:

Who shot first? Who usually shoots first? Find out, issue solved.
 
Tiassa said:
The most logical thing would be to throw you out in the alley.

....

I mean, really, when you tried to do that fiddling with electoral math—you know, trying to replace a-b with (a-b)/b, and all the random idiocy you came up with then—a number of people simply stopped taking you seriously.
Click to expand...

Hillarious, you mean the thread where YOU made the glaring mathematical error?

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2852092&postcount=141
 
There is a difference between pointing out a lie when someone lies and calling someone a liar when they have not done so.

So to the post that James asked about, that's obvious.

The issue I claimed he was lying about was that he never claimed his "flat panel tanks" were supposed to handle 3,600 psi CNG gas.



Here's his claim that he wasn't talking about storing CNG at the standard pressure of 3,600 psi:

Billy T post 2230 said:
NO!
My posts have all concerned the contained volume to wall volume ratio. I don't think I have ever stated the operating pressure. ”
Click to expand...

Here's the proof that he was:

Billy T post 2148 said:
My assumption is that both the flat panel tank and the round take operate at the same pressure
Click to expand...


Was it just me who thought so?

No

billvon post#2234 said:
Billy T said:
NO! My posts have all concerned the contained volume to wall volume ratio. I don't think I have ever stated the operating pressure.
Click to expand...
Well, you've said things like "Thus, one can easily make the flat panel NG tank hold more than twice as much NG as a around tank of the same weight!"

Perhaps you meant to say "one can easily make the flat panel NG tank contain more than twice the volume of a round tank." Which might be true depending on form factor constraints. However if your operating pressure is really 500psi then you can only hold 1/4 the amount of CNG, and thus achieve 1/4 the range.
Click to expand...

What was Billy's response to this?

Billy T said:
Nonsense! "same pressure" is not any specific pressure.
Click to expand...

But he had already agreed that we were discussing the same pressure as the large round 3,600 psi CNG tanks, because I specifically brought up the issue of handling this high pressure, to which Billy responded.

Billy T post 2148 said:
Of course I am considering pressure when I speak of a pressure tank. My assumption is that both the flat panel tank and the round take operate at the same pressure
Click to expand...

And of course someone else besides me came to the same conclusion:

billvon post 2281 said:
Billy T said:
I have never referred to the tanks “used today” as Adoucette claimed I did and certainly not to one at 3.600 psi (or any other particular pressure).
Click to expand...
Yes, you did - you quite clearly compared your tank to standard tanks operating at 3600 PSI. But again, I don't think that makes you an evil, deceitful person. It just means you made a mistake, as you did with the 3600 vs 36000 PSI thing. We all make mistakes.
Click to expand...


Of course there is also the case of claiming someone lied and then finding out you were wrong and then apologizing for your error, again something that Billy never does.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. adoucette/Arthur's complaining about being called a liar. Yet he has no problem lie-carpet-bombing. Kinda hypocritical.

See post 5.
Click to expand...

It's not hypocritical if the person is in fact lying Dave.

So Dave, can you show me a series of posts where I called someone a liar without posting clear PROOF of the charge?

People do lie, and if they do, they should be called for it, but then it is incumbent on the person leveling the charge to provide definitive proof.

See the above discussion on the tank pressure issue as an example of providing said proof.
 
Last edited:
Whine and Cheese

Adoucette said:

Hillarious, you mean the thread where YOU made the glaring mathematical error?
Click to expand...

Ooh, you mean when I forgot to account for a small bloc?

Well, there is another thing that is funny about you bawling it up of late. I mean, weren't you just bawling recently that someone was giving you too much heat for a mistake?

Quite clearly, Arthur, you will not be treated the way you treat other people.

That's another reason people find you dishonest.

So ... yeah. This whole whine and cheese bit you're trying is something of a joke.
 
Tiassa said:
Ooh, you mean when I forgot to account for a small bloc?
Click to expand...

Well you might think that over 4% of the popular vote is a "small block", but leaving it out was the reason you thought my math was wrong.
It wasn't.
Your's was.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2852092&postcount=141

Well, there is another thing that is funny about you bawling it up of late. I mean, weren't you just bawling recently that someone was giving you too much heat for a mistake?
Click to expand...

So why not do as I did and linked to the post in question, so people could make up their own minds, and show the posts where this happened Tiassa and we'll see if others agree that your assessment is correct?

Quite clearly, Arthur, you will not be treated the way you treat other people.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that, but I expect to be held to the same standards and rules as anyone else here and I've never asked for any special treatment.

That's another reason people find you dishonest.
Click to expand...

Well then, since being dishonest is an offense, you should easily be able to point to all my posts and/or infractions for being dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Tiassa said:
The most logical thing would be to throw you out in the alley.
Click to expand...

The fact that adoucette is a hypocrit, and a jerk to boot, doesn't imply that he doesn't have a point about BillyT. Multiple others have already seconded his complaint, and I'll go ahead and formally add myself to that list (I've made similar complaints countless times in-thread in the forum in question).

Indeed, focussing on an antagonist's hypocrisy (or other personality flaws) to the exclusion of his actual position is the typical behavior of trolls who agree with said position, but are too insecure to be seen agreeing with said antagonist. So they change the subject to what a shithead the antagonist is, in the expectation that the original point will be forgotten in the escalation and flaming.

To wit:

Tiassa said:
Actually, Arthur, your dishonesty comes when you try to annoy people by harping on tiny things, rewriting their arguments for them in order to support your criticism, and my favorite, the bit where you start screaming about something basic—say, what equals a mathematical difference—and then, when called out on your clearly disingenuous bull droppings, change the asserted basis of your original point in order to claim that in being wrong you were right all the time.
Click to expand...

Those are all things that BillyT is a long-time serial offender at. The exchange JamesR linked to as an ostensible display of perfidy on adoucette's part happens to be a clear example of just such shenanigans and basic dishonesty. And while adoucette's (hyper?)sensitivity to that surely stems from his own similar faults, that doesn't imply that they aren't problematic behaviors for a moderator to exhibit, and it certainly doesn't mean that you can substitute a flame war with adoucette for an actual response to the actual moderation issue.

But, who am I kidding? A staff that gave half a crap about the quality of discourse in that forum would never have empowered an obvious crank like BillyT in the first place. Or, at the very least, they'd have long since realized that, whatever BillyT's personal amicability, he's long since diminished that forum into a blog for his pet China-Eats-USA fantasies. SciForums would be better of simply eliminating the B&E forum at this point. Does it even generate page-views to speak of?

So, my advice would be for you (and JamesR) to leave the baiting and abuse of adoucette to those of us not charged with your responsibilities, and instead try to focus on the big picture, exhibit the maturity required by your stations, and eschew this bad habit of personalizing SFOG threads into pointless flame-wars. If you can't act like actual moderators instead of catty schoolgirls, then just don't bother responding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top