This and That
The Esotericist
That is an interesting analysis. I should note that I don't think people digging facts is quite as dramatic a contrast as you draw, but the point is taken.
I had not considered it in terms of government/corporate mouthpiecing, although I see a bit of where you're coming from on that.
One of the things that stands out to me is that whatever fact he asserts, there is only one possible interpretation of its significance, and that's whatever he happens to say.
Like my disagreement with him about oil exports. It's not that I don't see his point, but 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. That's also why he's hung up on the idea of a mathematical error acknowledged and explained, while refusing to acknowledge that a mathematical difference does not require division. If you go back to that discussion, it's hard to figure the significance of Arthur's formula because he won't stand on that significance.
What is really weird is that I've seen this sort of behavior before, from members we don't hear from much of late, though they are not permanently banned, and perfectly welcome to try their hack routines all over again.
One who stands out in my memory—and who we have not heard from since last summer—is an American political conservative with a history of sketchy sources and spurious arguments. If WND, or a right-wing blogger says something, it must necessarily be true. One of the most defining characteristics, though, was his penchant for recycling those propaganda points without really understanding them. Like Supreme Court decisions. Pressed for his explanation of why a particular decision means what he says it does, he would, at best, simply quote right-wing bloggers, even if that explanation had no demonstrable connection to reality. It was kind of like watching a child trying to be deliberately obscure in order to sound more intelligent, but in reality having no idea what he was talking about.
In the end, though, one could generally only find merit in his larger arguments by accepting that all his definitions were authoritative, and that there was no other way of looking at it than nodding and saying, "Yes, you're absolutely right. You know more than any specialized "expert". Law professors, judges, scientists, industrial and commercial sectors, and so on.
And, in truth, as I'm sure you're aware, that sort of thing is also part of why I criticize Ron Paul's supporters. Some of their definitions just don't work, and the only reason they continue as such is that they insist. And much like my critique of our neighbor here, I think some libertarians and other general societal dissidents tend to approach issues more from a desire to pick a fight and win than actually make any substantive progress in the discussion.
Still, though, the facts about how this staff treats these people completely undermines Adoucette's posturing. The member I recalled often received specific protection and advantage as a tacit matter of staff policy. Arthur's infraction record seems to show some pretty specific causes. The larger question of his general conduct wasn't exactly off the radar, but more toward the inchoate when this thread came up. It's almost like he wants us to take notice and convene for judgment.
Adoucette
Well, you see, not everyone sees it as a ban threat; additionally, there is the point that you seem to think people shouldn't treat your mistakes as you treat those of others.
Take the math error. My failure to account for the off-ticket vote is actually irrelevant to your screwed up math. And the thing is that while you insisted on your funky math, your reason for raising the point evolved as the discussion progressed and the uselessness of that math emerged.
Yet the generally irrelevant failure to account for 3.6% or so of the votes is what you harp on. Correcting that omission left the larger point intact.
Big deal ... well, to you at least.
So you "wrote a poorly worded post" and generally failed to make sense in trying to explain what you really meant.
Big deal. So what? Right? Life goes on.
But why you should bawl about people being mean to you because you "wrote a poorly worded post"? Logically speaking, that's a mystery. In the human context, not so much. We get it. We do. We're just not buying it.
You fixate on other people's minor errors, even after they are acknowledged and accounted for.
Why should anyone give you a pass for your minor errors?
See, you can play the literalist all you want, but if you do, that is how people will take you. You can also play the, "I know what you mean," line to your heart's content. But it seems rather contradictory to demand the liberty of poor wording for yourself while obsessing over other people's errors.
You don't need to be a member of the "Moderator 'in crowd'". For most regular members, paying attention is the most that is required. Some of them even stumble into the middle of staff fights by accident.
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—
—that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
Or, shall we go to the replay?
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?
You might note I've been disregarding you more of late. But you might also want to remember that it does not serve this community well for me to be using my ignore list.
The Esotericist
The Esotericist said:
That is an interesting analysis. I should note that I don't think people digging facts is quite as dramatic a contrast as you draw, but the point is taken.
I had not considered it in terms of government/corporate mouthpiecing, although I see a bit of where you're coming from on that.
One of the things that stands out to me is that whatever fact he asserts, there is only one possible interpretation of its significance, and that's whatever he happens to say.
Like my disagreement with him about oil exports. It's not that I don't see his point, but 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. That's also why he's hung up on the idea of a mathematical error acknowledged and explained, while refusing to acknowledge that a mathematical difference does not require division. If you go back to that discussion, it's hard to figure the significance of Arthur's formula because he won't stand on that significance.
What is really weird is that I've seen this sort of behavior before, from members we don't hear from much of late, though they are not permanently banned, and perfectly welcome to try their hack routines all over again.
One who stands out in my memory—and who we have not heard from since last summer—is an American political conservative with a history of sketchy sources and spurious arguments. If WND, or a right-wing blogger says something, it must necessarily be true. One of the most defining characteristics, though, was his penchant for recycling those propaganda points without really understanding them. Like Supreme Court decisions. Pressed for his explanation of why a particular decision means what he says it does, he would, at best, simply quote right-wing bloggers, even if that explanation had no demonstrable connection to reality. It was kind of like watching a child trying to be deliberately obscure in order to sound more intelligent, but in reality having no idea what he was talking about.
In the end, though, one could generally only find merit in his larger arguments by accepting that all his definitions were authoritative, and that there was no other way of looking at it than nodding and saying, "Yes, you're absolutely right. You know more than any specialized "expert". Law professors, judges, scientists, industrial and commercial sectors, and so on.
And, in truth, as I'm sure you're aware, that sort of thing is also part of why I criticize Ron Paul's supporters. Some of their definitions just don't work, and the only reason they continue as such is that they insist. And much like my critique of our neighbor here, I think some libertarians and other general societal dissidents tend to approach issues more from a desire to pick a fight and win than actually make any substantive progress in the discussion.
Still, though, the facts about how this staff treats these people completely undermines Adoucette's posturing. The member I recalled often received specific protection and advantage as a tacit matter of staff policy. Arthur's infraction record seems to show some pretty specific causes. The larger question of his general conduct wasn't exactly off the radar, but more toward the inchoate when this thread came up. It's almost like he wants us to take notice and convene for judgment.
• • •
Adoucette
Well, you see, not everyone sees it as a ban threat; additionally, there is the point that you seem to think people shouldn't treat your mistakes as you treat those of others.
Take the math error. My failure to account for the off-ticket vote is actually irrelevant to your screwed up math. And the thing is that while you insisted on your funky math, your reason for raising the point evolved as the discussion progressed and the uselessness of that math emerged.
Yet the generally irrelevant failure to account for 3.6% or so of the votes is what you harp on. Correcting that omission left the larger point intact.
Big deal ... well, to you at least.
So you "wrote a poorly worded post" and generally failed to make sense in trying to explain what you really meant.
Big deal. So what? Right? Life goes on.
But why you should bawl about people being mean to you because you "wrote a poorly worded post"? Logically speaking, that's a mystery. In the human context, not so much. We get it. We do. We're just not buying it.
You fixate on other people's minor errors, even after they are acknowledged and accounted for.
Why should anyone give you a pass for your minor errors?
See, you can play the literalist all you want, but if you do, that is how people will take you. You can also play the, "I know what you mean," line to your heart's content. But it seems rather contradictory to demand the liberty of poor wording for yourself while obsessing over other people's errors.
You don't need to be a member of the "Moderator 'in crowd'". For most regular members, paying attention is the most that is required. Some of them even stumble into the middle of staff fights by accident.
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—
—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:
• James R responds to various issues, including your introduction of his rank to the discussion:
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.
• 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:
Adoucette (#2909351/31) said:
• James R responds to various issues, including your introduction of his rank to the discussion:
James R (#2909370/34) said:
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?
You might note I've been disregarding you more of late. But you might also want to remember that it does not serve this community well for me to be using my ignore list.
