Then what's the problem? Just ban her adversaries and rename the website to SamsForums. Case closed...
Oh yes, I almost forgot:
James R: The S.A.M Issue
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
- Status
Then what's the problem? Just ban her adversaries and rename the website to SamsForums. Case closed...
Oh yes, I almost forgot:
Seems patently unfair to the others.
If the others have never been considered a problem, why would they suddenly be considered one now simply because I stick in some peoples craw?
Clearly there is no issue with people spitting at theists in general or Muslims and Christians in particular. Even the mods indulge themselves. Its only a problem when its Jews or atheists that are given the same "scientific" examination.
superstring01
Moderator
My two cents: SAM, if she is an "issue", is the least of them posting on the forum right now.
~String
~String
Lost on you, obviously.
You seem to be the best at sticking things in people's craws (that's what she said). Other people are not quite as good at it as you are.
For the record, I wish you would stick around. I disagree with you on most issues, but I think you're a highly intelligent person, and I enjoy reading your posts, even if they mostly piss me off
You seem to be the best at sticking things in people's craws (that's what she said). Other people are not quite as good at it as you are.
For the record, I wish you would stick around. I disagree with you on most issues, but I think you're a highly intelligent person, and I enjoy reading your posts, even if they mostly piss me off
I seem to be particularly good at pissing people off.
But, I have to admit, I'm frequently surprised by the people who are NOT pissed off! :bugeye:
Sorry, which Sam are you talking about, there's only one here and she doesn't follow that at all.
So far...none of the threads created by S.A.M. offended me, or would have ...I mean..I admit, if I'd be less of a light-hearted and lazy person then I'd probably argue non-stop with her on whatever political, religious/etc. subject out there because from what I've read I barely ever agree with her, but I guess I prefer to read over posting when it comes to political/religious/philosophical/cultural issues. Wait..there was this one thread I considered as irritating..but I think it was a splinter.."Is buddhism a failure?" - I thought a brick hit my head after having read the first few pages *cough* anyway...
Words are only as powerful as your own will is weak. Words are being made powerless by choice.
I know..I'm an unknown...new user...but honestly..S.A.M. is okay albeit a bit provocative, but who isn't?
Words are only as powerful as your own will is weak. Words are being made powerless by choice.
I know..I'm an unknown...new user...but honestly..S.A.M. is okay albeit a bit provocative, but who isn't?
Last edited:
SAM is the embodiment of what's wrong with Middle Eastern Politics, her tactics of argument symptomatic of a greater issue. Jewish philosophy has always encouraged admission to self-failure as a means to stimulating self-growth, this is not utilized amongst other Jews as an accusative starting point. Though Middle Eastern politics have undermined this important social convention, and used it to paint unfair - unjust pictures. Their propaganda is so compelling because the negative judgments come straight from the mouths of those they are judging.
Middle Eastern politics against Israel are not for deligitimizing a claim, rather deligitimizing a people. Here's an example of that, 'Jewish Temples never existed, says top Palestinian negotiator'. SAM seeks to legitimize Jews in general. Saying we're biologically unrelated to ancient Jews, that we've no claim over the land, that even the Torah says we don't have claim..etc etc. And who could blame her? This is the way her esteemed leaders behave; incredulity towards anything with a Jew associated, pseudo-intellectual arguments (for their case for political expediency), and generalization of individual philosophies into larger titles.
Middle Eastern politics against Israel are not for deligitimizing a claim, rather deligitimizing a people. Here's an example of that, 'Jewish Temples never existed, says top Palestinian negotiator'. SAM seeks to legitimize Jews in general. Saying we're biologically unrelated to ancient Jews, that we've no claim over the land, that even the Torah says we don't have claim..etc etc. And who could blame her? This is the way her esteemed leaders behave; incredulity towards anything with a Jew associated, pseudo-intellectual arguments (for their case for political expediency), and generalization of individual philosophies into larger titles.
If it's just a matter of S.A.M. posting misinformation, then surely you can refute that?
After all, others here do the same thing, and there isn't a ``The Member X Issue'', right?
Evading the question isn't an answer. I'll ask again. What is the objective purpose of this thread and why James' moderation time is being spent on it?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
SAM already was a mod some time ago.
S.A.M. was a mod.
That's where you're wrong. The delusions spouted by theists in regards to their cult are some of the most offensive and vile remarks on this forum, and are insulting to the intellect and all that is reasonable and rationale. It would be fine if they acknowledged that they're just making it all up, but instead, we find they believe it to be our reality, and wish to make the world a part of that delusion.
Trolling is a mild definition in context.
From Wikipedia:
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community [...] with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Not that I think S.A.M. is the worst offender here, but there's no debate in my mind that she's a troll. She's characterized her own activities in almost the same terms as that definition, on numerous occasions.
It's up to the site administrators and mods what kind of site they want to have. Right now, it's overrun by trolls, since there seems to be some kind of systemic resistance to calling them what they are and dealing with them as such. If you want a site where adults have rational, productive discussions, trolls need to be guarded against vigilantly, and dealt with swiftly and harshly. And yes, that is undemocratic, but there it is.
But there are already much better forums for serious discussions, and it's doubtful that Sciforums could ever equal them, even with perfect moderation: the years of audience self-selection have already occurred, and by now only trolls are interested in this forum in the first place. The serious-minded people have all long since gone elsewhere, vowing never to return.
So I say either get serious about this stuff, or dispense with the pretext that SciForums is something other than a troll's nest. The real problem here isn't the quality of debate per-se, but the chasm between the pretense of seriousness and the reality of childish trolls left to run amok. Half-assing it this way just energizes the trolls, since the mods quickly lose respect, while providing just enough of a patina of respectability to make this place an attractive trolling grounds.
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community [...] with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Not that I think S.A.M. is the worst offender here, but there's no debate in my mind that she's a troll. She's characterized her own activities in almost the same terms as that definition, on numerous occasions.
It's up to the site administrators and mods what kind of site they want to have. Right now, it's overrun by trolls, since there seems to be some kind of systemic resistance to calling them what they are and dealing with them as such. If you want a site where adults have rational, productive discussions, trolls need to be guarded against vigilantly, and dealt with swiftly and harshly. And yes, that is undemocratic, but there it is.
But there are already much better forums for serious discussions, and it's doubtful that Sciforums could ever equal them, even with perfect moderation: the years of audience self-selection have already occurred, and by now only trolls are interested in this forum in the first place. The serious-minded people have all long since gone elsewhere, vowing never to return.
So I say either get serious about this stuff, or dispense with the pretext that SciForums is something other than a troll's nest. The real problem here isn't the quality of debate per-se, but the chasm between the pretense of seriousness and the reality of childish trolls left to run amok. Half-assing it this way just energizes the trolls, since the mods quickly lose respect, while providing just enough of a patina of respectability to make this place an attractive trolling grounds.
Last edited:
- Status