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

[Ophiolite]

If you are willing to assert that, "Based on the evidence and argument presented to date no one has demonstrated to [you] that adoucette has lied," then I would appreciate if you would at least address the detail already on record at the time you made the statement, especially when you're then willing ask me to explain it to you in detail.

I mean, come on, man. Really?

Address what detail? There has been a host of words posted. None of them have even the appearance of a lie on adoucette's part. So what is it you want me to address? It is not practical to go through every word, sentence, paragraph and post and say "No, this doesn't look like a lie to me."

Why can't you just point me to the precise instant which you believe constitues a lie. As it is it is looking more and more as if you will not do so, because there is no such instance.

 

[RealityCheck]

Arthur has been posting here for a longish time now, he has observed James' manner of moderation and has recently been moderated by James. James rarely ever threatens to ban people.

James' initial posts in that thread mentioned nothing about moderation. Absolutely none. It was Arthur who brought it up into the discussion and then insulted him and told him he should not be a moderator. James then advised him that a complaint about Arthur's posts and manner of posting had been received about Arthur's "mistakes" in that thread. I use the term mistakes because it seems that Arthur is to be treated differently and his dishonesty should never be questioned. Anywho, it was in responding to Arthur's insults about James' status as an administrator of this site that James advised him that next time, instead of trying to clarify Arthur's "mistakes", he would simply just ban him for what was clearly a dishonest argument. At no time did he warn him of a ban. Arthur has been posting here long enough and has been banned before to know that James does not threaten to ban someone. He will just ban them.

But according to Arthur, when he goaded James about his status on this forum and pushed him to respond as a moderator, that was his being the victim of the hole he dug for himself in that thread and then the victim he declared himself threatened with a ban when it was clear that no such threat had been made.

At the end of the day, moderators have a few choices when confronted with claims such as those made by Arthur in that thread. We can either treat the individual making said claims as stupid and simply advise the membership to ignore them, or we can query it and attempt to clarify what exactly it is they meant. It seems that in this particular instance, the staff should have gone with stupid instead of daring to expect that he would have to actually qualify his statements. Here is how Arthur viewed the events in that thread. You see, to Arthur, a "good moderator" would have read between the lines, used a crystal ball and somehow managed some divine intervention to know exactly what it was he was saying and not to take his words at face value. To Arthur, a bad moderator is one who asks him to explain his statements and claims.

Now I agree with you. The whole 'liar liar pants on fire' style of debate has to stop. Billy used the exact same method of argument that Arthur has used repeatedly against Billy. In other words, Arthur should not cast that stone if he's living in a glass house.

Please understand, I am not 'taking sides' in any way shape or form. I am merely trying to balance the discussion. For example, James R, in clarifying his intention/meaning in some posts of his own, he admitted (quite honestly, may I say, and Kudos to him for it) that sometimes his intention/post is only 'in jest' or 'to get people to think' etc etc, and that hence his own posts are also sometimes not as clear as demanded by some/him of adoucette's posts. And so we had a sort of 'what's good for the goose is even more good for the gander' situation. Basically, if an admin/mod should be given the opportunity of clarifying before coming down on him like a ton of bricks with 'liar' etc accusations/reportings, then why should not the same courtesy be extended to adoucette if James/others think his posts are not clear at first blush? In fact, the onus is on a mod/admin more than an ordinary poster to make sure he is perfectly clear from the outset, since any misinterpretation of a admin/mod post has much greater potential for member relations than ordinary posts. And in any case, the fact that the reportings which motivated James R to intervene may not have been all they were cracked up to be 'statistics wise'. Hence the greater caution which should be displayed before making admin/mod forays into what may be a misunderstanding which could be exacerbated by hasty/partially informed etc etc action where an admin/mod is effectively in an ascendant position and the recipient member may feel intimidated and so 'read' a threat in some glib remarks which may or may not have been a threat, but which may leave themselves open to such interpretation given the disparity of power/control and possible human dimension present at the time it happened.

Like I said. Whatever the pros and cons of all that, it is now clarified between James R and adoucette, and BOTH of them have wanted to 'move on'.

How about we let them and drop this; and let the mods/admin do what they need to do in peace and quiet from here on in.

No 'aspersions' are intended to be cast by me, and I hope by anyone else, relating to all this.

Let's learn and move on just as James R and adoucette have done with their issue/misunderstanding, hey? :

Cheers and good luck!

.

 

[Bells]

Please understand, I am not 'taking sides' in any way shape or form. I am merely trying to balance the discussion. For example, James R, in clarifying his intention/meaning in some posts of his own, he admitted (quite honestly may say, and Kudos to him for it) that because his intention/post was only to get people to think, sometimes his own posts may not be as clear as demanded by some/him of adoucette. And so we had a sort of 'what's good for the goose is even more good for the gander' situation. Basically, if an admin/mod should be given the opportunity of clarifying before coming down on him like a ton of bricks with 'liar' etc accusations/reportings, then why should not the same courtesy be extended to adoucette if James/others think his posts are not clear at first blush? In fact, the onus is on a mod/admin more than an ordinary poster to make sure he is perfectly clear from the outset, since any misinterpretation of a admin/mod post has much greater potential for member relations than ordinary posts. And in any case, the fact that the reportings which motivated James R to intervene may not have been all they were cracked up to be 'statistics wise'. Hence the greater caution which should be displayed before making admin/mod forays into what may be a misunderstanding which could be exacerbated by hasty/partially informed etc etc action where an admin/mod is effectively in an ascendant position and the recipient member may feel intimidated and so 'read' a threat in some glib remarks which may or may not have been a threat, but which may leave themselves open to such interpretation given the disparity of power/control and possible human dimension present at the time it happened.

Like I said. Whatever the pros and cons of all that, it is now clarified between James R and adoucette, and BOTH of them have wanted to 'move on'.

How about we let them and drop this; and let the mods/admin do what they need to do in peace and quiet from here on in.

No more 'aspersions' are intended to be cast by me and I hope by anyone else relating to all this.

Let's learn and move on just as James R and adoucette have done with their issue/misunderstanding, hey? :

Cheers and good luck!

.

I edited my post.. you'll see the irony when you read it.

My final edited post is at post #80, where I finalised my response to you about this whole subject..

It goes to show the nature of the beast we are dealing with here.

Consider this my final post in this thread.:m:

Please understand, I am not 'taking sides' in any way shape or form. I am merely trying to balance the discussion. For example, James R, in clarifying his intention/meaning in some posts of his own, he admitted (quite honestly, may I say, and Kudos to him for it) that sometimes his intention/post is only 'in jest' or 'to get people to think' etc etc, and that hence his own posts are also sometimes not as clear as demanded by some/him of adoucette's posts. And so we had a sort of 'what's good for the goose is even more good for the gander' situation. Basically, if an admin/mod should be given the opportunity of clarifying before coming down on him like a ton of bricks with 'liar' etc accusations/reportings, then why should not the same courtesy be extended to adoucette if James/others think his posts are not clear at first blush? In fact, the onus is on a mod/admin more than an ordinary poster to make sure he is perfectly clear from the outset, since any misinterpretation of a admin/mod post has much greater potential for member relations than ordinary posts. And in any case, the fact that the reportings which motivated James R to intervene may not have been all they were cracked up to be 'statistics wise'. Hence the greater caution which should be displayed before making admin/mod forays into what may be a misunderstanding which could be exacerbated by hasty/partially informed etc etc action where an admin/mod is effectively in an ascendant position and the recipient member may feel intimidated and so 'read' a threat in some glib remarks which may or may not have been a threat, but which may leave themselves open to such interpretation given the disparity of power/control and possible human dimension present at the time it happened.

And he was asked to clarify his position and instead of doing so, launched an attack.

As a moderator, I read what people write. It is not in my job description to try to determine whether the person doesn't have time to edit (especially when I see that they have already edited their posts) and correct their "mistakes". I take things at face value as they are posted. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but I personally do not have time to go and PM every single member who posts "mistakes" to try to determine what exactly it is they are trying to say. Arthur was asked to clarify his statements and he failed to do so. How are we supposed to know that what you are thinking in your mind if it is not presented in what you post? How are we supposed to know if the two don't exactly match up?

I have pretty much avoided this thread until now, and do you know why? Because as a moderator, we are supposed to have thick skin and we are supposed to take it on the chin when members like Adoucette call us liars. That is what we are told.. 'suck it up'. We are also apparently supposed not to question the honesty of members like Adoucette in return when they posts questionable things or say things that don't quite sound true.

In short, this complaint about Billy is summed in one way"

Adoucette: You are a liar Billy (numerous times)..

Billy: I think you are lying Adoucette - about his responses to Michael's posts..

Adoucette: How dare you call me a liar! How dare a moderator call me a liar..

Rinse and repeat a few times.

Billy's only mistake is to treat Adoucette exactly like Adoucette treated him.. Apparently what's good for the goose can never be good for the gander.

 

[RealityCheck]

I edited my post.. you'll see the irony when you read it.

My final edited post is at post #80, where I finalised my response to you about this whole subject..

It goes to show the nature of the beast we are dealing with here.

Consider this my final post in this thread.:m:

With respect, and absolutely no offence meant or any accusations of lying/bias etc being elevelled at you by me here at all, but perhaps you would go back and re-read what adoucette said in your quote. See where he said he is OFTEN in a rush and don't have time to edit etc?

It seems a little hardsh to go from that to insinuating he should/would NEVER or ALWAYS go back etc etc, don't you think?

We should not forget when on the internet that every post and every day is a different day in REAL life out here. What may be possible one day may not be possible the next. So, such a 'rigid reading' of that quote and using that 'rigid reading' to make a point which I cannot honestly agree with as justifying calling him a 'liar' on that as well, does not sit easily with my perspective as a disinterested observer.


And as to the 'complaints' tendency. Well, the difference seems to be that others will 'complain at the drop of a hat' about adoucette, but they are miffed if HE eventually has enough of a continuing barrage of accusations and misunderstandings etc and finally makes a stand. At least that's what seems to come across to me. He is damned often and loudly, but on the rare occassion where he makes a stand because the admin/mods seem powerless/reluctant etc to address the issue evenhandedly or even at all, you now make him out to be 'the whinger'?

Mate, I agree with you we should comment no further; which is why I trust you will be more circumspect with your own reading' of adoucette's words, as I exampled above?

Cheers!....and let's move on, everyone. Leave the admin/mods sort it out, hey?

.

PS: Anyhow, the sort of tit-for-tat mentality which spawns further possibilities for unintentional/intentional misunderstandings in order to 'win at all costs' is to be eschewed robustly by all. There is no need for such 'at all costs' approach here. James R and adoucette have indicated they want to move on, and we have no right to bring in further argument on either 'side' about their misunderstandings/actions etc. Agreed?

.

 

[occidental]

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.

But I also felt pretty confident because my personal rule is to never knowingly lie.

Never once written a lie? Sounds good, except the facts dont support arthurs claims.

It wasnt that long ago that James R told him this:

Nobody has a right to lie about what other people post here.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2782573&postcount=129

All because of this exchange between arthur and CaptBork:

“
(CaptBork)And you think establishing a permanent base on Mars is a long-term, cost-effective goal with greater scientific benefits than a space telescope...
”
(adoucette)Quit lying, I've made no such statement.

“
(CaptBork)or that the ISS is a necessary or cost-effective way to conduct zero-gravity physics experiments... Next time try reading about what these nerds are actually researching before throwing in your gab about how it could be improved.
”
(adoucette)Why yes I do.
So you want to de-orbit the ISS?
What a fucking laugh.
We spent over $100 billion to build it, and it's just now ready to be used for what it was built for and you want to de-orbit it?
Get real.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2781505&postcount=101

Except CaptBork had never said anything about deorbiting the space station. And when he called out arthur on his lie, this is what arthur told him:

You LIE about what I post, I have the right to lie about what you post.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2781732&postcount=111

So just because captbork misunderstood arthurs positon on a mars base, he got accused of being a liar. And arthur then went on to retaliate by lying.

Sure doesnt sound like someone that has a "personal rule to never knowingly lie", since thats exactly what he did, and then went on to defend it as his right.


Clearly Arthur has earned his reputation.

 

[RealityCheck]

.

A perfect demonstration where tit-for-tat mentality escalates things from misunderstandings to melodramas!

That is why request for clarification should be the FIRST RESORT in any complex or possibly innocently-misconstruable position/exchange.

So all these dramas/problems could be easily avoided if the admin/mods made it CONSISTENT and OVERRIDING POLICY that all should request clarification (sometimes more than once) before accusing/reporting someone.

Maybe then we could avoid giving the admin/mods all these easily preventable headaches which they could happily do without? Just a thought!

.

 

[Balerion]

I find it interesting that quadraphonics's two posts in this thread have been completely ignored by the moderators.

 

[James R]

RealityCheck:

adoucette's ongoing gripe with me here has nothing to do with any act of moderation of him by me. His gripe is that he thinks I unjustly threatened to ban him. In fact, I didn't moderate him at all in the thread in question: no official warnings, no ban, nothing. All I did was comment on a few silly statements he made. He got all offended about having mistakes pointed out, and so here we are.

quadraphonics:

Speaking of people with no sense of humour...

 

[adoucette]

Never once written a lie? Sounds good, except the facts dont support arthurs claims.

....

So just because captbork misunderstood arthurs positon on a mars base, he got accused of being a liar. And arthur then went on to retaliate by lying.

Sure doesnt sound like someone that has a "personal rule to never knowingly lie", since thats exactly what he did, and then went on to defend it as his right.

Clearly Arthur has earned his reputation.

You think that was an accurate account, that CaptBork had "just misunderstood my position"?

Hardly.

(note, Occidental is my sad little stalker, and if you do a search on Occidental's post you will find that almost every post he has made here is simply trying to find an error I've made, it's a carry over from another forum. http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=6596399&pp=25 )


My posts were a deliberate and obvious attempt to get CptBork to quit claiming I supported positions when I had not done so.

So let's review the ENTIRE exchange between CaptBork and I, shall we?

Trippy brings up defunding the ISS and I reply with that the ISS is a necessary step for our eventual plans to go to Mars.

Next thing Congress is going to propose cutting funding to the ISS, after all, what direct benefits are they getting from it? ”

Nope, learning how to live and work in space is necessary for our planned objective of eventually going to Mars, not to mention running the many science labs/experiments that can only be done on the ISS. You know DIRECTED science towards living/working/manufacturing in space. Something that is much more likely to have direct benefits.

CaptBork comes in with his first lie about what I've said and I call him on it:

Arthur says Congress would have done the same thing with virtually any program experiencing such cost overruns...

I said no such thing. Quit lying.

What I actually said many posts back:

Re Arthur:

If that's your reasoning, why not cut back every single federal program which isn't matching its budget or delivering a tangible return on its dollars? What benefit is there to handing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street firms and banks who were so badly over budget and off projection, that they went completely under and crashed the economy? Why does NASA/America's future technical prowess have to be first on the chopping block, when the economic trouble wasn't even their fault? I know NASA employees can't muster too many votes at election time, but their contributions to the US and the world go quite a ways beyond their ability to vote or unionize...

Why do you think I'd have a problem with that?

So no, no mention at all by me of what Congress would have done, only that I wouldn't have a problem with it.


Next CaptBork brings up my comment on NASA's plans for eventually going to Mars.

P.S. Sending or preparing to send humans to Mars would be a vastly bigger waste of money than either the military or the JWST. What practical purpose does it serve to be able to send a dozen humans there who won't even be able to stay supplied over the long term? Their biggest tangible achievement would be the most expensive flag planting ceremony in human history... Yeah that must have taken some real deep thinking there...

And CaptBork makes the point that just going to plant a flag on Mars would be very expensive and have no practical purpose.

Some think Mars is important, I think it is at least a decade or more away from being even considered as a viable goal and I would be a bigger eventual supporter of going to Mars if the mission was to establish a permanent base.
In the mean time, I think our learning to be able LIVE and WORK in space is important as well as doing research in microgravity and so I support our current efforts to build and maintain the ISS.

So I think I made my position pretty clear: I think we are over a decade away from even considering making going to Mars a goal for our space program.

And to Bork's point about a mission to just plant a flag, I agree with him in that I say I could be an eventual supporter of that goal if our mission was NOT to just plant a flag.

Indeed I spell out my thoughts about spending money on science:

I prefer primarily directed investment in science to solve known problems as opposed to pure science to just gain knowledge.

Of course that doesn't mean I totally exclude doing pure science (like the LHC) just think that the expenditures in that area should be reasonable compared to direct investment.

Right now I think we need to focus our scientific research money primarily on solving our energy problem on earth and also learning how to handle the 9 billion people who will be here by the middle of the 21st century while maintaining a viable planet.

Notice no mention of going to Mars, but solving Earth's much more pressing problems of population and energy.

This is what I get back:

It seems the US government is still committed to spending huge sums in the search for/conquest of ah-ahl and other fossil fuels, so if you're really pushing for spending on environmental sustainability research, it doesn't seem anyone's listening other than Greenpeace. And you think establishing a permanent base on Mars is a long-term, cost-effective goal with greater scientific benefits than a space telescope... or that the ISS is a necessary or cost-effective way to conduct zero-gravity physics experiments... Next time try reading about what these nerds are actually researching before throwing in your gab about how it could be improved.

Of course I have never even remotely suggested that I thought that establishing a permanent base on Mars is a long-term, cost-effective goal with greater scientific benefits than a space telescope...

So no Occidental, it was not just as you claimed "a misunderstanding".
There is no basis at all for that statement from my posts.

Which is why I took that piece and protested to him:

And you think establishing a permanent base on Mars is a long-term, cost-effective goal with greater scientific benefits than a space telescope...

Quit lying, I've made no such statement.

Then I took the other claim and used it to make an OBVIOUS example to him of what this distortion was doing to the discussion:

or that the ISS is a necessary or cost-effective way to conduct zero-gravity physics experiments... Next time try reading about what these nerds are actually researching before throwing in your gab about how it could be improved.

Why yes I do.
So you want to de-orbit the ISS?
What a fucking laugh.
We spent over $100 billion to build it, and it's just now ready to be used for what it was built for and you want to de-orbit it?
Get real.

And it was OBVIOUS enough, and IMMEDIATE enough that he did get it.

No, how about you get real for a change. You want to ditch a telescope that's half built and intended to fill a major gap in present capabilities because you don't want them to receive a few extra billion in funding, yet you're ok with a $100 billion jungle gym in space whose biggest return to date is proving to the Chinese that America's still ahead of them in the space race. How about you name some of the economic returns the world gets on this $100 billion investment, instead of asking for Hubble spinoffs? There is nothing the ISS can do for physics research which can't be done cheaper and more effectively on the Earth or using a small, specialized orbital apparatus, even when it comes to microgravity research.

And hey, I didn't say de-orbit the ISS.

Which allowed me to make my point, that I wanted him to quit lying about what I was saying.

You LIE about what I post, I have the right to lie about what you post.

Call it a bit of self moderation (since little actual moderation exists on this forum)

So yeah, I purposely used an OBVIOUS distortion of what someone said to make a point to them to quit making gross distortions of what I was saying and I immediately admitted that fact, in the next post within the thread.

Not quite what we are talking about here

 

[occidental]

Which allowed me to make my point, that I wanted him to quit lying about what I was saying.



Call it a bit of self moderation (since little actual moderation exists on this forum)

So yeah, I purposely used an OBVIOUS distortion of what someone said to make a point to them to quit making gross distortions of what I was saying and I immediately admitted that fact, in the next post within the thread.

Not quite what we are talking about here

We get it arthur, you think you have the right to lie in order to make your point. And youre doing it again.

You say you "immediately admitted that fact, in the next post within the thread"? Again the facts dont agree with your version of reality. You made your post at 9:45pm, and 10 posts later the next day at 12:50pm you admitted it after you were called out on it. Hardly "immediate" or "the next post".

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2781732#post2781732

But Im sure you can find a way to explain how your lies are ok. Again.

And its exactly the same thing. You wanted one example where you lied. I gave it to you and your response is to resort to personal attacks and lengthy convoluted reasons why its ok for you to lie, and then you lied some more.

Is there really any question anymore that Arthur is a dishonest liar? He asked a question and he got his answer.

 

[Ophiolite]

Consider this my final post in this thread.:m:

Good move. Walk away from the accusations you've levelled at me. This is what some members feel typifies the arrogance of moderators on this forum.

Every six months or maybe every year the shit just gets too deep and it makes sense to take a break. Since I've never actually been missed I doubt it will have any effect. The sad thing is that it should.

 

[Tiassa]

Something about practicality

Address what detail? There has been a host of words posted. None of them have even the appearance of a lie on adoucette's part. So what is it you want me to address? It is not practical to go through every word, sentence, paragraph and post and say "No, this doesn't look like a lie to me."

Out of curiosity, you don't think that paragraph undermines your earlier determination?

We'll look at that issue, then I'll answer the question. Compare, please, the implications of the following two statements:

• "I am still waiting for a moderator or any member to cite a single instance in which adoucette lied. He's challenged several persons to do this and no one has yet succeeded. I'm just a simple lad, but that failure suggests something to me." (#54)

• "It is not practical to go through every word, sentence, paragraph and post and say 'No, this doesn't look like a lie to me.'" (#81)​

In the first, you say you're still waiting for a single instance, suggest that people are unwilling to detail their claims, and "that failure suggests something to [you]".

In the second, you say it's not practical for you to actually attend the record.

It would seem, then, that if it's not practical for you to actually attend the record, your prior assessment of the content of that record is dubious.

However—

Why can't you just point me to the precise instant which you believe constitues a lie. As it is it is looking more and more as if you will not do so, because there is no such instance.

—you might also consider that all I really wanted was your acknowledgment, which you have provided, that you simply didn't read the claim before asserting your analysis. See, it's always hard to tell, unless someone comes out and says it, whether they just ignored something on the record, or read the record differently and for some reason not bothered to explain their dismissal of its content.

And then I'll point you to #41, which addresses inaccurate statements Arthur made in this thread about what the historical record informs. His response at #44 is interesting, as something about goalposts goes here. To ensure I'm not being too obscure, then, here's the detail:

James is never just a fellow member unless you are also a moderator ...

It's true that James doesn't use his mod ink as consistently as others, but it isn't particularly difficult to tell when, in black ink, he starts to play moderator. Of course, that is subject to interpretation.

However—

... and he brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me.

—that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Or, shall we go to the replay?

• James R calls you out, without saying a word about rank, regarding the rhetorical mess you created with your "poorly worded" posts.

• Adoucette responds, claiming 43% is overwhelming, and addressing other issues; no discussion of James R's rank.

• James R responds to 43% argument, addresses other issues; no discussion of rank.

• Adoucette responds with a strange explanation that only deepens the rhetorical tangle you've spun around a couple of statistics, and then attempts to shame James:

Of course you would take it that I apparently think that 85% is not a majority,and indeed ask WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME and if I'm IMPAIRED.

Which if you were not a moderator would likely get you a warning.

But you feel you can insult members with impunity just because of your moderator status.

Shame on you James.

You should NOT be a moderator.

• James R responds to various issues, including your introduction of his rank to the discussion:

Instead of banning you, or even giving you an official warning, I decided to simply confront you with your stupidity. And here you are telling me I'm not fit to be a moderator.

Maybe next time I won't bother. I'll just ban you instead.

In other words, instead of putting on his Mod Hat he chose to address you as a member, and here you are invoking his rank in a desperate grasp for leverage.​

Give us a break. I think all of the staff has been through the, "How dare a moderator!" bit. Indeed, it wasn't too long ago that someone proposed that moderators should never express their opinions in political discussions, or something like that.

Oh, right. And then there's your claim that James "brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me".

So tell us, Arthur: Given what the actual record says, would you be so kind as to explain whether your incorrect claim a "mistake", or did you just try to lie to us?

Now, you'll note that Arthur made a specific claim—"[James] brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me"—that does not match up to the available record. And like I said, something goes here about goalposts. That is—

Oh, right. And then there's your claim that James "brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me".

So tell us, Arthur: Given what the actual record says, would you be so kind as to explain whether your incorrect claim a "mistake", or did you just try to lie to us?

You're kidding, right?

When James shows up and his post to you starts off with:

adoucette:

What's wrong with you?

He doesn't have to preface it with, "In case you forgot, I'm the Moderator"

He's already made it clear he is there in an official capacity.

Did you notice the change? Whereas Arthur previously claimed James brought up his rank via a ban threat, and the reality is that Arthur introduced James authority status, the later version changes the standard and declares an interpretive issue to be a matter of fact.

Do you need some more background? See posts #22 and 24 for the setup to the point about bringing up rank. "Why," I asked in the former, "drag his rank into it?" Arthur's direct response to that was, "James is never just a fellow member unless you are also a moderator and he brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me."

The first part of that is an interesting issue; we hear the complaint that people are inherently intimidated by the fact of our rank, yet, in truth, it doesn't seem to stop the the waves of sleight and silliness from breaking against our bulkheads. It's hard to accept that Adoucette is inherently intimidated by James' authority; after all, I also have the power to make his Sciforums existence absolute hell, or even cut it short, as justly or unjustly as anyone might wish to construe such an outcome, yet he has no problem slinging his dishonest "logical" manipulations in my direction.

But the second part—"[James] brought up his rank when he threatened to ban [Arthur]"—is demonstrably false, according to the record. At which point we must pause to consider some abstract notion about goalposts.

Then again, like you said ten hours after the exchange I've noted above—

"I am still waiting for a moderator or any member to cite a single instance in which adoucette lied. He's challenged several persons to do this and no one has yet succeeded. I'm just a simple lad, but that failure suggests something to me."​

—except, of course, something about practicality goes here, doesn't it?

 

[adoucette]

We get it arthur, you think you have the right to lie in order to make your point. And youre doing it again.

You say you "immediately admitted that fact, in the next post within the thread"? Again the facts dont agree with your version of reality. You made your post at 9:45pm, and 10 posts later the next day at 12:50pm you admitted it after you were called out on it. Hardly "immediate" or "the next post".

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2781732#post2781732

Nope little buddy.

After he had lied about what I was saying twice in the thread I simply did the same thing to him to get him to stop, and when he objected, I admitted that I had done so and why I had done so and it worked, we went on to have a decent discussion with no more lying.

Well till you reported this issue we had already resolved between us.

(I was told to not do it by James but I pointed out that I'd tried his method and all he did was lock the thread, which I didn't want to happen this time, so I tried a more direct approach.)

So as to your claim:

CaptBork posts his "Hey I didn't say deborbit" on 07-16-11, 10:10 AM in post #106

107 is Cosmic's post
108 is Billvon's post
109 is Wellwisher's post
110 is CaptBork answering Wellwisher

and like I said, MY VERY NEXT POST in the thread is post 111, where I tell him not to lie about what I'm posting and I won't lie about what he is posting.

Seems you're wrong again Occidental.

 

[RealityCheck]

RealityCheck:

adoucette's ongoing gripe with me here has nothing to do with any act of moderation of him by me. His gripe is that he thinks I unjustly threatened to ban him. In fact, I didn't moderate him at all in the thread in question: no official warnings, no ban, nothing. All I did was comment on a few silly statements he made. He got all offended about having mistakes pointed out, and so here we are.

quadraphonics:

Speaking of people with no sense of humour...

That's right mate. I saw your clarification of the misunderstanding. That is why I have already characterised it as a misunderstanding. That is why I said that both you and adoucette obviously wish to move on from that misunderstanding and that we should leave the rest of the issues raised in this thread to the admin/mods to sort out amongst them in peace without any further comments from us which will only prolong the unnecessary since you admin/mods have all the information you need to do in order to make this place a better place for having had this discussion however it began.

A great site, really. An even greater site for having had these issues 'aired' out in the open. We're all grownups, so we can learn and move on to bigger and better things without lingering rancour or grudges, hey!

Cheers, James R, everyone, and good luck to you admin/mods.....a thankless job sometimes, hey?....so....and I think I speak for most if not all here.....THANKS for all your efforts and responses trying to sort all this out as best as humanly possible! I just hope we all can now leave you all in peace to get on with it, hey!

.

 

[adoucette]

Now, you'll note that Arthur made a specific claim—"[James] brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me"—that does not match up to the available record. And like I said, something goes here about goalposts. That is—

And that statement is correct.

He did bring up his rank when he threatened to ban me.

Did you notice the change? Whereas Arthur previously claimed James brought up his rank via a ban threat, and the reality is that Arthur introduced James authority status, the later version changes the standard and declares an interpretive issue to be a matter of fact.

No I didn't later introduce an "interpretive issue"

YOU brought this issue up to start with with YOUR assertion that:

He addressed you as a fellow member. Why drag his rank into it?

That is, in the example of your boo-hoo about James last month, not only did the whole setup full of clodhopping excuses further erode any pretense of your integrity, but it is really hard to believe that you don't get the point: He addressed you as a fellow member. Why drag his rank into it? ”

James is never just a fellow member unless you are also a moderator and he brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me.

So from my FIRST response to you I clarified why James is never just a felllow member and then I added WHEN he brought up his rank.

But I've never agreed with you that James ever addressed me as a fellow member.

Which is the point you keep missing.

And in this specific case, when James starts out his first post with: "What's wrong with you?" and ends it with "are you on something?" he is most clearly announcing that he is there as a moderator and NOT as you claim, a fellow member.

Posting as a fellow member he would have not flaunted forum rules and simply asked me what I meant by that post.

But the FACT is Tiassa, that James has already said he was there as a moderator responding to a complaint of the previous post.

What you are apparently trying to claim I said was something like: that James was the FIRST to officially mention his status as a moderator when he threatened to ban me

Which is of course NOT what I wrote, was it?

And once more I have point out that so far the only BLATANT lie that has been told in this thread was by you.

I find it hilarious that you and all the other moderators continue to ignore this blatant lie (in the original post it was just a mistake, but since you have been shown your mistake, your repeating it now is simply spreading misinformation via spreading falsehoods).

it's also a hard proposition that his definition should trump the editors of a hydrocarbon trade magazine, financial news sites, and the general discourse. Trying to win an argument by redefining its terms is not universally advisable. ”

Because you've been shown clearly, with links and such, that you are WRONG.

The US in 2011 was NOT a net exporter of OIL.

So I'm curious Tiassa, are you ever going to admit that you were wrong and apologize for spreading lies about me redefining terms just because you didn't understand them?

Because until you do, your credibility is zilch.

 

[adoucette]

So then we come to Arthur's final post in the thread where he makes this extraordinary claim, posted at 02-28-12, 03:55 PM:

And irony of ironies:

[Last edited by adoucette; 02-28-12 at 04:46 PM.. ]

Now, if I am to take Adoucette at his word, he rarely every rereads and edits his posts. He made this claim in that thread that he rarely ever does so due to time constraints.. but then, as the evidence clearly shows, he had been rereading and editing the posts where at least one other member thought he had lied. And yet, he claims that he does not have time to reread and edit his posts and the member who thought he was lying should somehow not have reported his "mistakes" to the moderators.. but he spent quite a bit of time re-reading and re-editing his posts.

Same as for his posts in this thread. Many of them have been edited by him.

So was he lying when he claimed he "does not have time to reread and edit" when he has been rereading and editing his posts? Is that further evidence of his dishonesty?

Friggin amazing Bells.

I never wrote that "I rarely every rereads and edits his posts.

Why is it that you changed "Don't often have time to" to "Rarely" in every one of your parapharsing of my statement?

Do you honestly think they mean the same thing?

Clearly they don't.

What I wrote:

I'm often in a rush and don't have time to reread and edit and make sure that I footnote my responses.

So Bells what that means is that WHEN I'm in a rush I don't have time to reread and edit my posts.

But, that is clearly not the same as saying I rarely reread and edit my posts.

In fact I almost always reread and edit my posts whenever I have the time to do so.

But often I don't have time to do so, or at least do so right away, but that isn't the same as rarely.

So WHO is being dishonest here Bells?

 

[Ophiolite]

For fucks sake Tiassa. This is ridiculous. I read the whole frigging thread. I could see no instance where evidence of lying was presented. Then I am told - I paraphrase what was said - "No, no, there are is a clear incident given." Since I didn't see that the first time then all I am asking is that you point out where this frigging incident is so I can look at it again. Is that so frigging hard?

—you might also consider that all I really wanted was your acknowledgment, which you have provided, that you simply didn't read the claim before asserting your analysis. See, it's always hard to tell, unless someone comes out and says it, whether they just ignored something on the record, or read the record differently and for some reason not bothered to explain their dismissal of its content.

No. Absolute balls. I have read the entire thread. I do not see where an assertion of lying is made that stands up. I have not acknowledged that I have not read the claim,. If the claim is in this thread I have read it, but it did not appear to be a valid claim.

I am fucking incensed at this. I expect a fucking retraction. This is character assassination. I'm disgusted by the complacent arrogance on exhibit here.

Tell you what, forget the retraction. Enough really is enough.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

You say you "immediately admitted that fact, in the next post within the thread"? Again the facts dont agree with your version of reality. You made your post at 9:45pm, and 10 posts later the next day at 12:50pm you admitted it after you were called out on it. Hardly "immediate" or "the next post".

Nope little buddy.

Yes, little buddy. occidental linked to the thread in question.

You don't get to invent your own facts, adoucette.

For somebody complaining about lies being told, don't you think you're being just a bit hypocritical?

 

[Arioch]

@James --

Of course he's hypocritical, he is human after all. However I doubt that Adoucette ever thinks that of himself though.

 

[Kittamaru]

Adoucette ... I'm just going to put my $.02 in here...

Perhaps nobody would call you a liar if you never lied... but let me ask this - can you claim to have never once uttered an untrue word?