Moderator is Unfair

Status
Not open for further replies.
perplexity said:
That is not what happened.

James' objection was the discussion of private affairs inappropriate to the forum, an objection that would and should have stood just as much against you, yourself, Mr nexus, a point that others apart from myself had already put. I do not complain of such a rule so long as it operates evenly.
Click to expand...
okay, i think i understand the point you are trying to make.

you feel that since invert and xev go at each other you have the right to do the same, right? first of all the original invert/xev thread was moved to the cesspool, second james has warned invert and xev about their antics, he even deleted posts, pictures and threads.

you feel that invert and xev are receiving special treatment.
the only difference between what is happening to you and what happened to invert is that invert didn't bitch about the moderation.

furthermore the fact that james moved the invert/xev threads to the cesspool and deleted a few others tells me that james does not condone this type of behaviour
 
leopold99 said:
okay, i think i understand the point you are trying to make.

you feel that since invert and xev go at each other you have the right to do the same, right? first of all the original invert/xev thread ....
Click to expand...

There is an awful lot more to it than that, a long history of "having a go" on sciforums but I'd rather not attempt to go over it all again.

Above all else I am bitching about others indulging their delusions, telling stories, misrepresenting at my expense. That above all else is why I would agree that it is not a good idea to pursue complicated personal issues online, because it simply does not work. Fact mixes up with with fiction and it all goes haywire, when they think they "know" this or that but they don't.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

(Hamlet, Act I sc.5.)

--- Ron.
 
"You should be women, and yet your beards forbid me to interpret that you are so."

(Macbeth, I, iii)
 
perplexity:

You seem to be carrying some emotional baggage from our previous exchange, in which you were banned for (what was it?) three days.

In case you're not clear about this, you were banned for stalking another member of sciforums, and in particular for posting personal details about that member on the forum. You were first warned to stop that behaviour, but you ignored the warning. Therefore, further action became necessary.

If I deleted any of your posts, it wasn't your criticisms of me, which are plainly still here for all to read. I know I edited or deleted posts which contained the other member's personal details, but I'm sure you would want the same thing done if you were the victim.

I suggest it may be time for you to get over it.
 
James R said:
perplexity:

In case you're not clear about this, you were banned for stalking another member of sciforums, and in particular for posting personal details about that member on the forum. You were first warned to stop that behaviour, but you ignored the warning. Therefore, further action became necessary.
Click to expand...

Wow, I was completely unaware of that. Ron, now I'm very dissapointed. :eek:
 
leopold99 said:
woody posted links to some gay porn, a guy with 3 arms up his ass (no joke).
Click to expand...
Okay, how did all those fit? :eek:

Wait... I probably don't want to know.

leopold99 said:
james r. deleted said links and now woody is crying the blues.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay. I just thought he had some sick obsession with fisting or something.

leopold99 said:
frankly i feel james was justified and further more i am surprised he didn't ban woody for it.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised too.
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Wow, I was completely unaware of that. Ron, now I'm very dissapointed. :eek:
Click to expand...

It is a nonsense, a risible apotheosis of ad hominem, a story made up to spite me for want of a reply to my argument, which is why I persist with my objection.

James had written to me that "our policy is that you may not post the real names or details of other members without their permission."

I had therefore responded to point out that the "personal details about that member on the forum" were (and still are) already available from previous postings to sciforum threads. The complainant had already assented; the name had been used, by the same subscriber and by myself on a good number of previous occasions.

To defend my reputation I therefore responded to a thread to point this out, with links supplied to previous postings where the name and the assent are still to be seen, but James deleted the post, precisely because of the links. It is apparently against the rules now to link to a previous posting, nor presumably to quote from it if a complainant does not happen to want you to do so.

Another thread was also closed before I had the chance to respond to this:

invert_nexus said:
...She's said to me that she didn't really mind. But that she never gave you permission.
That's a liberty that is not really yours to take.
Click to expand...

"didn't really mind" but complains to the moderator, what the hell would you think that is about then?

It is not about a sciforum rule; it is really about talking sides in a personal vendetta, endorsing revenge and ill will, in favour of a bad loser who just can't take it when shown to be wrong.

If that it is how you want it to be here, good luck to you. I am not impressed.

Further to "stalking" the more intelligent version that I had previously received from James was this

26th June said:
Finally, I know that water has a perception that you are stalking her. Whether or not this is true, your posting personal attacks on her does not help.
Click to expand...

Apart from that I had seen no particular comment, no judgement on the matter from him, so no opportunity to respond. I would therefore suggest, now, that he "knows" no such thing, only, perhaps, that the perception was alleged. We do not "know" each other's perceptions. I am not privy to other correspondence to James R, where further allegations against me may occur.

--- Ron.
 
Ironically it is ok for members to threaten other members to go after them in real life.

Maybe I'm on your side with this. Shame there is no reality though and I do not exist.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Ironically it is ok for members to threaten other members to go after them in real life.

Maybe I'm on your side with this. Shame there is no reality though and I do not exist.
Click to expand...

I supply my real name. Anybody with a BT telephone directory may work out where I am.

Others who like to indulge their malice prefer to operate anynymously, from behind closed doors.

What then should they expect us to think of that in terms of authority and ordinary respect?

Courageous?

Honest?

I think not.

--- Ron.
 
Well, my name, address, articles, link to thesis, etc., has been splashed on the screen in the past on this forum. It doesn't take a genius to dig that stuff up.

I will not (at the moment) give out that info voluntarily. But it's out there.
 
spurious:

If that happens, and you don't want it to, hit the "report" button and I will immediately remove it and deal with the person responsible.

If you want to PM me any instances that you'd like deleted, I'd be happy to do that, too.
 
And in terms of the consistency of moderation, what for instance is [POST=1125279]this thread[/POST] about?
It looks to me like an exchange of personal messages.
As somebody wrote to me once before:

The bottom line is that, as moderator, I don't think sciforums needs this kind of personal interaction. Other, more appropriate, forums exist specifically for this kind of thing. There are chat sites. There is email. There is even (shock horror) the real world, with its telephones and so on.
Click to expand...

It doesn't bother me per se, and I presume that nobody bothers to press the report button as a result, but it does bother me to be accused of attempting something out of order when for as far as I was concerned I had followed a long standing tradition.

With regard to relevance to the forum one might also cite the persistently salacious heckling from Gustav, except to hesitate to sicken the readers.

Fair is fair.

--- Ron.
 
"You made your children what they are.... These children that come at you with knives, they are your children. You taught them. I didn't teach them. I just tried to help them stand up.... You can project it back at me, but I am only what lives inside each and every one of you. My father is your system.... I am only what you made me. I am a reflection of you.
Charles Manson (1934 - Present)
 
spuriousmonkey said:
The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
Click to expand...

It is not about forgiveness.

Forgiveness is about harm done.

It is about harm in progress, harm yet to be done, if you let it.

--- Ron.
 
crying.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top