James R: The S.A.M Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Enmos said:
Wouldn't that be against the forum rules?
Click to expand...

Technically, yes. Here's how these things play out:

1. Moderator closes thread A with a warning and/or message.
2. Angry poster posts thread B, which is a continuation of A, and possibly also complaint thread C against moderator.
3. Moderator/admin closes thread B (and possibly C), and temporarily bans angry poster for reposting a closed thread.
4. Angry poster's angry supporters start thread D complaining of moderator bias, in which the original discussion from thread A inevitably continues as well.
5. Moderator has dilemma as to whether to temporarily ban all 12 of angry poster's friends for further breaches of site rules.
6. Repeat steps 4 to 6.
 
James R said:
Technically, yes. Here's how these things play out:

1. Moderator closes thread A with a warning and/or message.
2. Angry poster posts thread B, which is a continuation of A, and possibly also complaint thread C against moderator.
3. Moderator/admin closes thread B (and possibly C), and temporarily bans angry poster for reposting a closed thread.
4. Angry poster's angry supporters start thread D complaining of moderator bias, in which the original discussion from thread A inevitably continues as well.
5. Moderator has dilemma as to whether to temporarily ban all 12 of angry poster's friends for further breaches of site rules.
6. Repeat steps 4 to 6.
Click to expand...

The reason why things play out like that here on Sci is because you guys are too soft.
No is no, and anyone that has trouble understanding that should feel the consequences. Right? That's how rules work.
 
James R said:
As I said earlier, I have neither the time at present nor the inclination to wade through thousands of SAM's posts to find examples of her bigotry to present to you. You can go look for yourself, if you haven't read them in the past. They aren't that hard to find, but it takes a little time going through the list.

I have already made my substantial argument in this thread, which you have largely ignored in your demands for more "evidence". I have invited you, if you disagree with my assessment of SAM, to post your alternative opinion and assessment, explaining why she is not a hater and why her behaviour ought to be supported/accepted on sciforums.
Click to expand...

Confirmed.

James R's posts in the thread contain the substantiation for his original claims. Others have supported his views and provided actual links to examples. A couple of you guys disagreeing with his statements and dismissing those examples doesn't change that. Sorry. :cool:
 
Gustav,

What is the objective purpose of this thread? I want to know why James' moderation time is being spent on this?
 
James R said:
As I said earlier, I have neither the time at present nor the inclination to wade through thousands of SAM's posts to find examples of her bigotry to present to you. You can go look for yourself, if you haven't read them in the past. They aren't that hard to find, but it takes a little time going through the list.
Click to expand...


i see
i take it then the few that you actually put on the table are NOT examples of her bigotry? that you accept the refutations of your characterizations of said examples, presented by tiassa, as valid? i mean, did you even bother to counter his arguments?

James R said:
I have already made my substantial argument in this thread, which you have largely ignored in your demands for more "evidence".
Click to expand...


i did not ask for more evidence......yet. i just want you to clarify what you had already presented here. post by post. the only one you have clarified was this and we all know how that turned out

James R said:
I have invited you, if you disagree with my assessment of SAM, to post your alternative opinion and assessment, explaining why she is not a hater and why her behaviour ought to be supported/accepted on sciforums.
Click to expand...


again, i am not the one making accusations. i have no problem with sam, nor with the posts that you presented to me. what the hell are you asking me for, a character reference?

your assessments need clarification. how many time do i have to ask this of you? not "more" evidence, just deal with the ones already on the goddamn table. look at it this way. i say...poster x is a dick. you ask me why. i simply say....go look for yourself, try the first few pages. you sir, will laugh me out of town. is it not more pertinent and efficient to ask me why i make that claim? are you for fucking real?

you familiar with.......extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
a good old sci standby, yes? what do you claim? hatred? bile? racism? antisemitism? you think those are on par with saying sam is a naughty girl?

hatred and bigotry, james. serious allegations especially when made by someone in your position

again for each of the arguments, tiassa made a rebuttal. did you even bother to defend or clarify how you came to make those assessments? and you troll me for an opinion?

James R said:
Armchair critics are a dime a dozen, gustav. You can sit back and watch the game, interjecting the occasional ascerbic comment, or you can join in and put your case. At the moment, you're just shouting at the umpire from the sidelines.
Click to expand...


what the hell are you on about? my case? i have no beef with sam, you do!
 
Gustav said:
/chuckle

moving on.....2 of 12 unsequenced

regioncapture.jpg



james
again, tell me why, please. i also note the thread remains open in free thoughts
this time i would like you to comment on the other players in that thread
lucysnow seems ubiquitous so take a moment to assess her contribution. i am of course not asking you to neglect the rest of the players

quote more posts from that thread that trouble you the most. i presume it is only sam's, correct?
thanks
Click to expand...


shall we take another gander at this, james?
a play by play that sheds some light into your reasoning?
 
iceaura said:
I have some serious disagreements with SAM. I think she is in fact bigoted against "the Jews", fundamentally confused re atheism, baffled and uncomprehending regarding US culture and Western mores, and probably adherent of numerous other flawed philosophical and intellectual positions that haven't struck my attention.

But amid the endless spewing of vile and personal attacks against her, the ranting jingoistic shitflinging, the moronic playground backslag, the bizarre and time-wasting and irrelevant vituperation continually directed her way, most of it launched from apparent self-oblivious misreadings and bigotry-based failures to comprehend SAM's posts, I'm having a hard time getting a reasonable argument in edgewise.

Which SAM's incorrigible deflection does not make easier, but still:

You guys are and have been way out of line, IMHO. It has been your behavior, not SAM's, that has created the bulk of the "problem of SAM" that exists on this forum.
Click to expand...


yeah
i can see james's gang of thugs busy at work here as well
i wonder if congratulations are in order for a job well done

James R said:
The evidence of this thread speaks eloquently. SAM has a cheer squad who thinks that what she is doing is just fine and justifiable, even admirable. But you know what I notice? I notice that ALL of the comments in support of SAM in this thread all express agreement in one form or another with her political views, or come from people whose political sympathies lie close to SAMs (as their posting records confirm).
Click to expand...


indeed
 
some seem confused as to why this thread exists, its purpose.
let james explain by example.....








thanks james
thats real hardcore
 
Gustav, while Tiassa might have justified the raising and existence of the threads from a technical point of view - i.e. looking at core points being raised - there are surely better ways of wording threads that do not incite.

It is perhaps more the language and style that SAM uses that JamesR has issue with rather than the technical points of the arguments per se?


Further, with 20x to 30x more posts than most other people, is it not likely to appear that SAMs posts are coming under a seeming greater scrutiny than others... while in actuality the "issue to post-count ratio" might be the same as for everyone else?
Just a thought.
 
James R, I think no matter what your decision will be...someone will be unhappy about it and will come and complain...so I would say it's almost pointless to have this thread open. With letting other users decide for you, or even recommend what course of action you should take you're losing authority, and people will lose faith in your judging skills. I mean, it's nice to see that the staff of this forum likes to take its users' opinions, advices into account, but sometimes users should just shut the Hell up about these matters, and let the mods decide on their own.

The fact that so many complaint threads are popping up on here is because these users know that some mod will eventually take the time to reply to their rant no matter how absurd it is, and with this give them the validation they wanted. I can literally see them waiting for a mod to pop up in their rant thread and gratifying them with a reply when they should just lock the thread and throw it into the cesspool.
Really, sometimes a goddamn iron fist is needed to make those whinging kids shut up. People - let them get through with it once and they will consider it as their privilege.
I think you already know what to do...or at least I like to hope so.
 
I'm not going to dredge through this thread to find all its ramifications,
but let me say this:
People like Sam are the reason I post on this site, annoying as she can be.
She has a sense of justice, and she has integrity.
I know that when you are arguing with her she can be as slippery as a cake of soap in the bath, but I mean personal integrity.

Same goes for you JamesR, actually.

What you call bigotry may be a valid opinion coming from a different life experience.
Too many intelligent posters have been lost from this site.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about all of this is, SAM is just sitting back in her seat just basking in all the attention. What I have noticed since being here is that she loves being the center of attention, be it good or bad attention. Let's face it, she practically lives on the internet so this is the majority of her life.

Sciforums would be doing her a great favor in banning her for a while IMO so she could actually go and live in the real world.

The Mods here are funny because instead of just banning her like other members in the past, it's like they are scared of her/him. I am sure SAM is just sitting back and laughing at the special treatment she gets that other members here wouldn't get.

I read Bells posts and even though her and I or not good buddies, at least she sounds like she has some balls. :thumbsup:
 
shorty_37 said:
The Mods here are funny because instead of just banning her like other members in the past, it's like they are scared of her/him. I am sure SAM is just sitting back and laughing at the special treatment she gets that other members here wouldn't get.
Click to expand...

I can assure you that no one here is scared of banning S.A.M.

I think (read: I don't know, but it seems to me that) there is an overall reluctance to ban S.A.M. because it would mean setting a new precedent, which would be applied across the board. I, for one, would not stand S.A.M. being banned if several other people of the same ilk weren't also evicted. And even in this case, S.A.M. is (at least to me) a good contributor at times, which is not the case of some of her adversaries, and is certainly not the case of some of her detractors in this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top