Mods are too lax
- Thread starter Communist Hamster
- Start date
- Status
Well.
Nothing on topic.
As to the argument... Not really.
Nothing you can say here will change my opinion of you. There's really nothing to resolve. The only thing that you've 'resolved' is to get me to admit that gossip wasn't really the proper term to use when describing what I was describing. And that's purely a semantic issue. I suppose you think you 'pounded me' because I wasn't precise enough with my nomenclature?
My choice in words merely demonstrates further the fact that I went into all this with no more intent than making a little joke. A bit of a jibe.
Poking at the guy who popped into the thread talking about mutts and maggots with devious motives and what the fuck ever.
Who'da thunk you'd overreact like you have?
Well. I really should have known. I guess, in a way, you actually have changed my opinion of you. I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have taken my jibe in stride. Not jump in with all this.
I'm pretty much done with it, by the way.
This is getting nowhere and every inane post by you and me merely seperates the thread farther from its topic which is what inspired me to post in here in the first place.
I'm actually considering deleting my posts to you so as to remove some of the chaff and place the posts of importance closer to the end of the thread where they might actually get noticed and responded to.
Wow.
I just realized.
I'm promoting censorship with those words. Even if self-censorship. I'm still admitting the need to delete useless garbage like this.
I suppose that it doesn't matter much anyway. Nobody cares. Maybe Gendanken and Spurious will wander back in here eventually. But, I doubt if anything will come of this thread.
It's that feeling, that sense of despair, that I seek to fix with this idea of moderator responsibility.
Just hoping that with some dedicated actions that maybe, just maybe, people can be made to care again.
People used to care, didn't they?
What happened?
The problem, of course, is that those who care were, for the most part, driven off by the very phenomenon which Spurious demonstrated in his post on the evolution of his one-liner posts. And this suggests that this idea of inspiring threads is futile as it is those very threads which are so often soundly ignored.
The young women are so beautiful this year.
Nothing on topic.
As to the argument... Not really.
Nothing you can say here will change my opinion of you. There's really nothing to resolve. The only thing that you've 'resolved' is to get me to admit that gossip wasn't really the proper term to use when describing what I was describing. And that's purely a semantic issue. I suppose you think you 'pounded me' because I wasn't precise enough with my nomenclature?
My choice in words merely demonstrates further the fact that I went into all this with no more intent than making a little joke. A bit of a jibe.
Poking at the guy who popped into the thread talking about mutts and maggots with devious motives and what the fuck ever.
Who'da thunk you'd overreact like you have?
Well. I really should have known. I guess, in a way, you actually have changed my opinion of you. I'm disappointed in you. I thought you would have taken my jibe in stride. Not jump in with all this.
I'm pretty much done with it, by the way.
This is getting nowhere and every inane post by you and me merely seperates the thread farther from its topic which is what inspired me to post in here in the first place.
I'm actually considering deleting my posts to you so as to remove some of the chaff and place the posts of importance closer to the end of the thread where they might actually get noticed and responded to.
Wow.
I just realized.
I'm promoting censorship with those words. Even if self-censorship. I'm still admitting the need to delete useless garbage like this.
I suppose that it doesn't matter much anyway. Nobody cares. Maybe Gendanken and Spurious will wander back in here eventually. But, I doubt if anything will come of this thread.
It's that feeling, that sense of despair, that I seek to fix with this idea of moderator responsibility.
Just hoping that with some dedicated actions that maybe, just maybe, people can be made to care again.
People used to care, didn't they?
What happened?
The problem, of course, is that those who care were, for the most part, driven off by the very phenomenon which Spurious demonstrated in his post on the evolution of his one-liner posts. And this suggests that this idea of inspiring threads is futile as it is those very threads which are so often soundly ignored.
The young women are so beautiful this year.
invert_nexus
You should relax.
I started it jokingly.
You're too defensive about it.
I'm not saying that I'm not telling the truth as I see it. Just saying that it doesn't really concern me enough to make more than a joke out of it. I'd think you'd be more aware of it.
ahh
here we go again. this urge to be in control and dictate my reality. a simple assertion of yours was disputed with facts. you could have let it go. yet you escalated with an attack on my intellect. to that, i will respond any fucking way i choose
So. If we change 'gossip' to 'flaming' then we're in accord?
stand by your fucking words or issue a retraction with apology
Ok. So. You do get involved in flame wars as well. I suppose I was also throwing that into the same category as gossip. That's not fair. But, what I'm really referring to is posts where you just pop in out of nowhere and make some idiotic and harassing post.
your opinions do not mean a damn to me, n00b. your admission of dishonesty is similarly noted and will be taken into account
Denigrate and demean.
You mean like 'mutt'?
Poor, Gustav.
Doesn't like to receive, does he?
But, the worst thing is that he recognizes himself in my words. Otherwise he wouldn't be so upset.
Would he?
you did indeed reason like a mutt. how do i know this? you acknowledged the point presented along with the ad hom however what i have been receiving from you are dishonest untruths. the kind that involves a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. the kind that i only expect to be served by a troll.
and no, i am not upset. i am merely defending myself. it is quite routine nowadays and you have yet to present any real challenge.
i see also you are playing to the gallery. you must be hoping for some butt buddies to chip in.
how trollish
Several posters who I have some respect for actually spend most of their time in pseudoscience. And I find those posts to be inane because of that.
imagine that. you crucify yourself. we now get the true measure of your skills in assessing and judging posts.
never mind that a post in there may consist entirely of a logical and scientifically sound argument that demolishes the crackpot premise of the topic post. you will still judge it as inane
do still you wonder why i take issue with your characterizations of my posts?
i have zero credibility in your ability to make sound judgments. it is irrational emotions and pathological idiosyncrasies you bring to this board. i find that utterly worthless.
A fixed length of time? No.
the implication was there. go back and fucking read.
How would you have responded if I instead said, "Figures you'd have so many posts in pseudoscience." Would that suit you better?
well go ahead, say it and find out.
pathetic. when i am finally done i will own you
I spend pretty much zero time interested in your activities.
lies. i am flaming/gossiping/trolling/inane. it seems you have my number vert
Am I merely trolling? No.
i am referring to the usage of "we". it is what trolls do. i therefore accuse you of being a troll. how fucking hard is that?
Come on, man. You're going to seriously tell me you don't remember the shit you've posted?
fuck the irrelevant chat, boy
I'll concede that they're not necessarily 'gossip'. I was merely going with the theme of my joke when I said that. They're flames, but flames which do concentrate on the behavior of the other forum members. Much as this flame war is doing, for that matter.
yeh, thanks for nothing, what other forum members?
Do you honestly believe that I'm not dealing fairly with you?
That I'm biased?
absolutely. you are just a little punk and will be treated accordingly
And do you think that I always use the royal we?
There are certain expressions in which 'we' just naturally takes part.
For instance, "We all know that..."
Hey. You know who 'we' is in that statement?
You and me.
We.
It would also encompass anyone else observing and would basically be an invitation for those observing to participate. To sound off on whether their observations match the stated observation or not.
Interesting thing, language.
Do you agree?
no need to get chummy with me, boy
focus
why would i care if you use always use it?
compartmentalize
i only care with what you bring to the table
right here right now
it is you that insists on looking at histories to condemn
and i think you lie. you seek to intimidate thru usage
a common trolling tactic
I've conceded the flaming and gossip issue.
However, the correlation is still somewhat relevant as flaming is often gossipy. It's personal at the very least, yes?
Of course, that would make my gossipy in this interchange of ours...
Such is life.
ahh
the semantical gymnastics are a sight to behold. you would prostitute even yourself to maintain your false premise
you are a disingenuous and vapid troll. now you are a hypocrite. indulging in the very thing that you are supposed to be deriding in me. you do not have the grace to concede like a frikkin human being. you have no credibility nor integrity
And. I think your definition of troll is wrong. I don't think that disingenuous is necessarily a part of trolling. A troll can be quite ingenuous. Utterly believing in the rightness of his logic and argumentation. The key element would be in stirring up shit.
pure irrationality and ignorance on display.
let me educate you
if one believes a=b and presents it to the board, it would be treated as an mistake and the poster as ignorant.
if he insist it is so despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he is deluded
if however, he knows of its erroneous nature and yet presents it as factual, then he is a troll stirring up shit.
I know that I've personally witnessed many initial posts by you that would be considered flaming and shit-stirring. Moreso in the past than the present. I'll admit that. But even so.
keep on qualifying. soon you will be cannibalizing your ass.
it is pathetic how you desperately cling on to the ..."But even so."
Am I being disingenuous?
Perhaps. Somewhat.
nice. the crucifixion progresses
First. I maintain that disingenuousness is not correlative of trollish behavior. If that were so, then every devil's advocate would be a troll.
and they are. which is why most qualify the post by acknowledging the tactic..."i'll play the devils advocate here...........," etc..
most experienced posters do so to minimize any confusion
Second. I'm not even really being disingenuous. I suppose I was setting up a sort of character witness. A bit of corroboration for your fascination with the trollish occupation. For your nature.
you squirm like an eel. it must be fascinating to be in your head eh vert? you do not know if you are coming or going
Hardly going on the defensive. Merely stating the facts. I was speaking of inspiring threads and the majority of my threads do not fall in the category that I would view as inspiring. Many of my posts do. But only a few of my threads.
Simply being realistic. That's all.
I have no problems with the truth.
bullshit. stop fucking lying. go back and read. you clearly expected the crucifixion to involve a counterattack on your posting habits. sorry to disappoint but i had the red meat you had just brought to the table. i was gonna chomp down on it. thats all.
I have certainly considered this as well and this is why I was somewhat facetious with my self-nomination.
Haven't I already said this? I think I have. In fact, I think you're basically just reiterating exactly what I said in what you quoted and in my words around the same location in the post.]
what? what the fuck are you going on about. my assessment was derived from the dialogue you presented to me in this fucking thread
However, I do have an intuition that I'd have more incentive with a moderator position with the instilling of the proper feeling of responsibility.
that was pathetic beyond words. are you child or an adult? you want sciforums to be your goddamn parents? i swear to god, you would be better off dead. go on, why not kill yourself?
Interesting association.
Poetry and penis size.
What do you think of your mother?
boys gotta know their limitations and when not to needle
it is not poetry that is being compared, and no, i do not believe you are that stupid. you are just being a disingenuous troll
looky here.....
Or are they all stolen, those poems of yours?
Write me a poem about 'just a forum'.
you tell me i do not have the intellect to write a poem (its actually true)
and that, troll, is what you want to lord over me. intellectual capacity aka dick size
I stand by my posting record.
nobody is knocking it..........yet
You should relax.
I started it jokingly.
You're too defensive about it.
I'm not saying that I'm not telling the truth as I see it. Just saying that it doesn't really concern me enough to make more than a joke out of it. I'd think you'd be more aware of it.
ahh
here we go again. this urge to be in control and dictate my reality. a simple assertion of yours was disputed with facts. you could have let it go. yet you escalated with an attack on my intellect. to that, i will respond any fucking way i choose
So. If we change 'gossip' to 'flaming' then we're in accord?
stand by your fucking words or issue a retraction with apology
Ok. So. You do get involved in flame wars as well. I suppose I was also throwing that into the same category as gossip. That's not fair. But, what I'm really referring to is posts where you just pop in out of nowhere and make some idiotic and harassing post.
your opinions do not mean a damn to me, n00b. your admission of dishonesty is similarly noted and will be taken into account
Denigrate and demean.
You mean like 'mutt'?
Poor, Gustav.
Doesn't like to receive, does he?
But, the worst thing is that he recognizes himself in my words. Otherwise he wouldn't be so upset.
Would he?
you did indeed reason like a mutt. how do i know this? you acknowledged the point presented along with the ad hom however what i have been receiving from you are dishonest untruths. the kind that involves a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. the kind that i only expect to be served by a troll.
and no, i am not upset. i am merely defending myself. it is quite routine nowadays and you have yet to present any real challenge.
i see also you are playing to the gallery. you must be hoping for some butt buddies to chip in.
how trollish
Several posters who I have some respect for actually spend most of their time in pseudoscience. And I find those posts to be inane because of that.
imagine that. you crucify yourself. we now get the true measure of your skills in assessing and judging posts.
never mind that a post in there may consist entirely of a logical and scientifically sound argument that demolishes the crackpot premise of the topic post. you will still judge it as inane
do still you wonder why i take issue with your characterizations of my posts?
i have zero credibility in your ability to make sound judgments. it is irrational emotions and pathological idiosyncrasies you bring to this board. i find that utterly worthless.
A fixed length of time? No.
the implication was there. go back and fucking read.
How would you have responded if I instead said, "Figures you'd have so many posts in pseudoscience." Would that suit you better?
well go ahead, say it and find out.
pathetic. when i am finally done i will own you
I spend pretty much zero time interested in your activities.
lies. i am flaming/gossiping/trolling/inane. it seems you have my number vert
Am I merely trolling? No.
i am referring to the usage of "we". it is what trolls do. i therefore accuse you of being a troll. how fucking hard is that?
Come on, man. You're going to seriously tell me you don't remember the shit you've posted?
fuck the irrelevant chat, boy
I'll concede that they're not necessarily 'gossip'. I was merely going with the theme of my joke when I said that. They're flames, but flames which do concentrate on the behavior of the other forum members. Much as this flame war is doing, for that matter.
yeh, thanks for nothing, what other forum members?
Do you honestly believe that I'm not dealing fairly with you?
That I'm biased?
absolutely. you are just a little punk and will be treated accordingly
And do you think that I always use the royal we?
There are certain expressions in which 'we' just naturally takes part.
For instance, "We all know that..."
Hey. You know who 'we' is in that statement?
You and me.
We.
It would also encompass anyone else observing and would basically be an invitation for those observing to participate. To sound off on whether their observations match the stated observation or not.
Interesting thing, language.
Do you agree?
no need to get chummy with me, boy
focus
why would i care if you use always use it?
compartmentalize
i only care with what you bring to the table
right here right now
it is you that insists on looking at histories to condemn
and i think you lie. you seek to intimidate thru usage
a common trolling tactic
I've conceded the flaming and gossip issue.
However, the correlation is still somewhat relevant as flaming is often gossipy. It's personal at the very least, yes?
Of course, that would make my gossipy in this interchange of ours...
Such is life.
ahh
the semantical gymnastics are a sight to behold. you would prostitute even yourself to maintain your false premise
you are a disingenuous and vapid troll. now you are a hypocrite. indulging in the very thing that you are supposed to be deriding in me. you do not have the grace to concede like a frikkin human being. you have no credibility nor integrity
And. I think your definition of troll is wrong. I don't think that disingenuous is necessarily a part of trolling. A troll can be quite ingenuous. Utterly believing in the rightness of his logic and argumentation. The key element would be in stirring up shit.
pure irrationality and ignorance on display.
let me educate you
if one believes a=b and presents it to the board, it would be treated as an mistake and the poster as ignorant.
if he insist it is so despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he is deluded
if however, he knows of its erroneous nature and yet presents it as factual, then he is a troll stirring up shit.
I know that I've personally witnessed many initial posts by you that would be considered flaming and shit-stirring. Moreso in the past than the present. I'll admit that. But even so.
keep on qualifying. soon you will be cannibalizing your ass.
it is pathetic how you desperately cling on to the ..."But even so."
Am I being disingenuous?
Perhaps. Somewhat.
nice. the crucifixion progresses
First. I maintain that disingenuousness is not correlative of trollish behavior. If that were so, then every devil's advocate would be a troll.
and they are. which is why most qualify the post by acknowledging the tactic..."i'll play the devils advocate here...........," etc..
most experienced posters do so to minimize any confusion
Second. I'm not even really being disingenuous. I suppose I was setting up a sort of character witness. A bit of corroboration for your fascination with the trollish occupation. For your nature.
you squirm like an eel. it must be fascinating to be in your head eh vert? you do not know if you are coming or going
Hardly going on the defensive. Merely stating the facts. I was speaking of inspiring threads and the majority of my threads do not fall in the category that I would view as inspiring. Many of my posts do. But only a few of my threads.
Simply being realistic. That's all.
I have no problems with the truth.
bullshit. stop fucking lying. go back and read. you clearly expected the crucifixion to involve a counterattack on your posting habits. sorry to disappoint but i had the red meat you had just brought to the table. i was gonna chomp down on it. thats all.
I have certainly considered this as well and this is why I was somewhat facetious with my self-nomination.
Haven't I already said this? I think I have. In fact, I think you're basically just reiterating exactly what I said in what you quoted and in my words around the same location in the post.]
what? what the fuck are you going on about. my assessment was derived from the dialogue you presented to me in this fucking thread
However, I do have an intuition that I'd have more incentive with a moderator position with the instilling of the proper feeling of responsibility.
that was pathetic beyond words. are you child or an adult? you want sciforums to be your goddamn parents? i swear to god, you would be better off dead. go on, why not kill yourself?
Interesting association.
Poetry and penis size.
What do you think of your mother?
boys gotta know their limitations and when not to needle
it is not poetry that is being compared, and no, i do not believe you are that stupid. you are just being a disingenuous troll
looky here.....
Or are they all stolen, those poems of yours?
Write me a poem about 'just a forum'.
you tell me i do not have the intellect to write a poem (its actually true)
and that, troll, is what you want to lord over me. intellectual capacity aka dick size
I stand by my posting record.
nobody is knocking it..........yet
invert_nexus
Leaving fresh corpses behind with each discovery.
evil and malignant is how i see this
you are intent on exposure
you will not allow me to move on
i will take that too into consideration
Imaginary heap?
You're in my way?
Seriously. Dude.
You're making way too much of it.
You're just some guy.
Pretty funny that you think this way.
Who's the megalomaniacal one here?
really? justify the megalomania from the quote
deny all you want. i claim to observe the same way you do me
the difference is i witnessed your birth
Well. You're interested enought to start the thread as opposed to not starting it.
Of all the thread topics that could be started, don't you think that the topics actually chosen, those that actually come to mind to start, say something about the interests of the topic starter?[
sure it does but you disingenuously avoid the issue. it is not whether he has an interest but whether he has a deeper one, simply because of authorship, over others. this is like talking to a child now. i have to frikking explain what the argument is about
A full third of all the threads you've cared enough to post are in About the Members. And are generally gossipy. Although, I'll grant you that they're often actually flamebait. But, as I've mentioned before, there is a correlation between gossip and flaming.
well lets take a look at this alleged correlation....
"However, the correlation is still somewhat relevant as flaming is often gossipy. It's personal at the very least, yes?"
is this how you conduct yourself on this board? make unsubstantiated statements and expect others to buy into them? how is flaming, gossiping?
Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting (wiki)
what am i doing with you? gossiping? about fucking what? the goddamn weather? bitches? jeez, i am speechless!
Leaving fresh corpses behind with each discovery.
evil and malignant is how i see this
you are intent on exposure
you will not allow me to move on
i will take that too into consideration
Imaginary heap?
You're in my way?
Seriously. Dude.
You're making way too much of it.
You're just some guy.
Pretty funny that you think this way.
Who's the megalomaniacal one here?
really? justify the megalomania from the quote
deny all you want. i claim to observe the same way you do me
the difference is i witnessed your birth
Well. You're interested enought to start the thread as opposed to not starting it.
Of all the thread topics that could be started, don't you think that the topics actually chosen, those that actually come to mind to start, say something about the interests of the topic starter?[
sure it does but you disingenuously avoid the issue. it is not whether he has an interest but whether he has a deeper one, simply because of authorship, over others. this is like talking to a child now. i have to frikking explain what the argument is about
A full third of all the threads you've cared enough to post are in About the Members. And are generally gossipy. Although, I'll grant you that they're often actually flamebait. But, as I've mentioned before, there is a correlation between gossip and flaming.
well lets take a look at this alleged correlation....
"However, the correlation is still somewhat relevant as flaming is often gossipy. It's personal at the very least, yes?"
is this how you conduct yourself on this board? make unsubstantiated statements and expect others to buy into them? how is flaming, gossiping?
Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting (wiki)
what am i doing with you? gossiping? about fucking what? the goddamn weather? bitches? jeez, i am speechless!
invert_nexus:
Don't let me distract you from your in-depth discussion with Gustav, but I'll respond to your comments concerning me.
Then we differ in our opinions. But you knew that.
Actually, lately I've been doing more than I used to. Not because I've changed, but because the forum goes through cycles, depending on which members are active at any particular time.
Because this is a general forum. Young people might be viewing it at any time, hoping to see something about science. And what do they get? A misogynistic rant from you. What value is there in that? Nothing.
Because when they joined the forum, like you they ticked the box saying they would not post anything obscene, hateful etc. etc.
The guidelines for this forum are clear from the time you sign up, invert_nexus. If you can't agree to minimal standards of decorum, find a forum which lives in the gutter. No doubt there are plenty of them around. Hell, we even allow a "cesspool" here, for the posters who just can't control themselves.
I don't appoint mods.
Don't let me distract you from your in-depth discussion with Gustav, but I'll respond to your comments concerning me.
Then we differ in our opinions. But you knew that.
Actually, lately I've been doing more than I used to. Not because I've changed, but because the forum goes through cycles, depending on which members are active at any particular time.
Because this is a general forum. Young people might be viewing it at any time, hoping to see something about science. And what do they get? A misogynistic rant from you. What value is there in that? Nothing.
Because when they joined the forum, like you they ticked the box saying they would not post anything obscene, hateful etc. etc.
The guidelines for this forum are clear from the time you sign up, invert_nexus. If you can't agree to minimal standards of decorum, find a forum which lives in the gutter. No doubt there are plenty of them around. Hell, we even allow a "cesspool" here, for the posters who just can't control themselves.
I don't appoint mods.
invert_nexus
Did I take offense at being called a mutt?
Did I take offense at being accused of conspiracy?
No.
the first has been addressed
you rebutted the second and i accepted since i did not dispute the explanation
it was a flame intended to provoke.
i was correct with the first and probably wrong on the second
yet, this conferring was by pm, yes? i know it is you and your buddies preferred medium for gossip
now you are free to be offended or not. i will deal with either consequence witth far more grace than what has been shown by you
I've already stated that flames can be considered gossipy.
prove it
I'm not into these flame things. That's your forte. Not mine.
reason and logic is what you need to concern yourself with. the "mutt" and "dickwad" is mere rhetoric. how do you not know this? baron max? valich? remember your dealings with them?
Well. You're the one who seems intent on the flame rather than the topic.
its unfinished business. so the thread digressess. sue me
Did I take offense at being called a mutt?
Did I take offense at being accused of conspiracy?
No.
the first has been addressed
you rebutted the second and i accepted since i did not dispute the explanation
it was a flame intended to provoke.
i was correct with the first and probably wrong on the second
yet, this conferring was by pm, yes? i know it is you and your buddies preferred medium for gossip
now you are free to be offended or not. i will deal with either consequence witth far more grace than what has been shown by you
I've already stated that flames can be considered gossipy.
prove it
I'm not into these flame things. That's your forte. Not mine.
reason and logic is what you need to concern yourself with. the "mutt" and "dickwad" is mere rhetoric. how do you not know this? baron max? valich? remember your dealings with them?
Well. You're the one who seems intent on the flame rather than the topic.
its unfinished business. so the thread digressess. sue me
James,
Heh. Tell me about it.
I'm considering deleting all this shit.
I'm infected by the dark side...
And. I appreciate your response.
Did you, by any chance, read my post way back before all this bullshit started?
Any thoughts on my idea?
Probably think it's unrealistic?
Aye.
Asshole!
It is lately that I've been noticing several edits.
I find some of the edits questionable.
Take, for instance, this thread.
Now. I suppose I can understand deleting mine and Gustav's shit.
Why?
Because it's entirely off-topic.
But, if we were arguing, even insulting each other, on-topic, then I'd think that editing would be unnecessary.
Perhaps the best bet for this 'discussion' Gustav and I are having is not actually deletion, but rather splitting it off and dumping it in the cesspool...
Or. To be wonderfully ironic. About the Members... Muaha!!!
See what I'm saying?
I really wonder at some of your choices.
Those posts of Gendanken's and Fountainhed's in your Black thread, for instance.
Do you really think they were wholly worthless?
Enough to just make them vanish like that?
Are you serious?
Those were songs, James.
They were songs and it wasn't a thread on science.
The first song, My Bitch is on the Rag, I thought of because of how people tend to get irate in here so often. It was my way of speaking of flame wars. Like this one. I guess.
The next song. The Four F's. I posted because I felt that it was the attitude of those involved in flames.
The 'pwned' mentality.
I suppose that those two songs were flip sides of the flame war issue. The first from an observer's stance, the second from the antagonist's stance.
Interestingly enough, I think that you are being misogynistic by confining the meaning of those songs to women. I wasn't. I thought they covered all genders. Especially as the internet is a genderless environment.
This reminds me of an episode of South Park where there was an issue with the State (or maybe town) flag. The flag showed a bunch of white guys hanging a black guy. There was a big stink and the flag was going to be outlawed. The kids didn't understand why. They liked the flag. It had history. So they joined the protest. Chef, a black man, took offense at the kids doing this, but it turns out that they weren't being racist. In fact, when they looked at the flag they didn't see a bunch of white guys hanging a black guy. They just saw a bunch of guys hanging another guy. They didn't even notice the color of their skin. The problem was solved by making it a white guy, brown guy, and a black guy hanging the black guy. Plus the guy getting hung had a smile on his face. Muaha!
Anyay.
You're the misogynist. Not I.
Yes. But doesn't the forum go through cycles where sometimes things will be acceptable and then other times they won't?
Plus, I don't think, from what I read, that their posts were worthy of deletion.
What, Fountainhed sad something about his dick. Right? Maybe that was too much. But there were valid points made on both sides that were also thrown out.
No. They're not clear. They change. The pendulum swings.
However, one can understand, as you say, some minimal standards, but sometimes minimal is less minimal than others.
I stand by my belief that this period with little moderator influence speaks for itself when it comes to what people should be allowed to post and what they shouldn't.
Things have been nice and orderly around here without the need for heavy moderation.
No. But you have influence. Do you deny this?
You're the sole supermod remaining. You are also an admin, are you not? Or was Goofy the only admin other than Porfiry?
Gustav,
Sigh.
How utterly boring you are.
To respond.
To not respond?
Well.
I'm somewhat bored.
And I suppose that the topic is already thoroughly buried underneath your hurt feelings anyway.
So.
Why not?
I still am considering deleting my posts to you.
Maybe the better solution would be an entirely new thread.
I find it ironic that eventually James will most likely come in here and take action. Moderator laxness indeed.
A simple joke of mine was reacted to with a great fury which indicates just how close to home I hit. Facts? Semantic issues, douchebag.
Let me outline the course of events seeing as how you seem to be obviously hard of understanding.
I responded to your post about the issue of moderation and inspiration.
I tacked on a joke at the end of the post.
From that point on you've been obsessed with defending yourself.
From a joke.
A stupid trifling joke.
It's funny watching your defenses blow up like this though.
Soft spots require the largest walls.
And this too shows your inner fears and paranoias.
When did I attack your intellect?
I attack your motive. I call you a troll because of your motivations.
You even admitted that you see flame wars as a test of intellect.
As I said, you're proud of your flaming skill, yes?
No.
You can go on this huge rampage about semantics or what the fuck ever but it doesn't change the fact that I used the word gossip as merely the theme of a joke. A joke. A joke to which you took great offense. Thus indicating how sensitive you are about being called a gossip. And how you even equate this with slights to your intellect in some manner.
Also, I've already explained how flames and flaming are often personal matters and are quite similar to gossip. You've brought in the term 'ad hom' which is an even better term than gossip.
You're not dumb though. You understand exactly what I've been saying and that's why you're going to such pains to keep this on a defensive level. You're not attacking me because to do so you'd have to resort to ad hom and thus would fall prey to the accusation of gossip.
Right?
When I mentioned your flaming consisting of ad homs in a previous post, I was referring more to observations of flames elsewhere. Just so you know. Although, your initial posts contain ad homs. Before the whole gossip issue was brought up.
Idiot. (There's your attack on your intellect. Happy now?)
Admission of impreciseness.
So. To you 'mutt' has a specific meaning? Denoting poor logic skills?
Is this not an ad hom? An attack on the speaker rather than upon his argument?
How gossipy of you.
As to being dishonest.
Douche. I've made no such admission.
The only thing I've said that could be taken along those means is when I said that perhaps I was somewhat disingenuous in my use of the term gossip merely because it was a fucking joke and thus was not scrutinized for preciseness.
This is a semantic issue where perhaps the words chosen were not the best that could have been chosen.
But, you have to focus on this because it's all you have, right?
Great victory you have there.
Semantics are wonderful, yes?
Oh? Tell me more. What 'butt buddies' might you be referring to?
I'd love to hear all the latest gossip. Do tell.
That's right.
Debunkers are pretty much as inane as the debunked.
I'm not saying that I don't find some of the posts entertaining or even educational. But, I find the whole debunker/debunked dynamic pointless.
The debunkers often trip over themselves in their rush to debunk. Really quite disgusting.
But. As I said. To each his own.
Not really.
I only wonder at your problem with accepting the truth of your posts.
I'm not speaking of your posts in WE&P or in pseudoscience as I have not really read any of them. I can't judge. Those are forums in which you obviously find interest and the few that I have read of them seem to be seriously written for the most part so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with them.
It's the rest that I have no respect for.
And, all I can say is that the vast majority of the posts of yours I've come across I judge poorly.
That's all.
I know what I've seen. Perhaps I've missed out on a lot of your posts. Maybe fate has decreed that I only bump into your posts when you're being a spammy troll. I don't know. I only know what I've seen and what I've seen, for the most part, is not good.
As I said before, there's nothing that you can do to change my opinion. So there's no point to all this.
An example of your poor interpretation skills.
I merely said I was surprised that you posted so much in pseudoscience. That's all.
Why did I say it?
Because I was surprised to find out that you posted so much in pseudoscience. I can't help that you read some sort of admonition in my words. I really don't give a shit where you post. As long as you don't ruin any threads I'm involved in.
Like this one.
Yeah? And?
As I said, I've been around the forums. I've seen your posts. I've seen threads get ruined by your posts and flamebait. I have a memory.
I sure as fuck don't go nosing around to see what Gustav is doing today.
And how fucking hard is it for you to understand that I addressed this very point a mere quote or two later? Difficult?
But it's so much fun sharing all the gossip with you.
The forum members that you're engaging in flames with.
That was difficult.
How can you deny your posting style? You've even admitted it with the simple semantic change of flame for gossip.
You're going to tell me you don't get personal in your flames?
Riiiight.
Uh.
No. It was you that thought it pertinent to bring your history to the table.
I merely made a joke about you leering at the girls and being a little gossip.
You're the one who felt a history lesson was in order.
Beware. We will get you, Gustav.
The whole forum is behind me. I have a phantom army at my heels.
Heh.
Intimidate. With 'we'.
Douche.
My. You're so tiresome.
Flaming. Personal attack. Gossip. Ad hom.
Yes. They are connected.
And seeing as how I am currently engaged in a conversation which deals in a personal analysis of you and your posting style then I am engaging in what I am deriding in you.
Yes.
But, it's more the amount of time you spend in such pursuits that I deride in you.
Everyone flames on occasion.
But you have already admitted that you do it in overdrive.
And. Concede?
Concede what?
You want me to say that you're not a gossipy little flamer?
I won't. It's the truth.
Your inability to comprehend simple points in your 'mood' is really getting annoying.
I said, clearly, that being disingenuous is not necessarily a part of being a troll.
The operative concept in being a troll is the stirring up of shit purposefully. One can do that while being completely truthful.
So. Would it be proper for me to call you a mutt then?
You are obviously having problems with your brain.
I'm not really calling you stupid. I'm actually just saying that you're having a hard time seeing reality. I conjecture it's because of your defensiveness about this issue.
Could be wrong.
It's funny. The way you latch on to my honesty and hold it up as a beacon of your victory. As if you're squeezing some admission out of me at great discomfort to myself.
You used to spend more time flaming and spreading flamebait than you do recently.
So?
I'm qualifying anything by saying this?
Cannibalizing?
No. Merely stating what I see.
But, you go ahead and think that you're crucifying me or whatever.
Not quite.
You should really stop quoting things out of context.
I say somewhat because my bringing up this thread really served little purpose.
You accuse me of playing to some kind of gallery or whatever, but the truth is that all I'm doing in here is talking to you.
So. My bringing up this thread is not really... important to anything.
It doesn't really stack into the evidence of my opinion of you as a troll. Especially as how it's only recently that I've found about this thread (you posted a link to it somewhere. I forget where.) but moreso because, as you say, posting about trolls doesn't make you a troll.
I just found it funny that you'd post on trolls and that's why I brought it up.
Therefore. Somewhat disingenuous in my bringing up of the thread.
Squirming?
Squirming from what?
As I've already said a number of times, this whole thing is pointless as my opinion of you is already what it is. I have nothing to squirm from.
My point is that, in my observations of you, you spend a great deal of time and emphasis on spammy and trollish posts.
It's that simple.
This thread is simply a bit of icing on the cake.
Circumstantial evidence, if you will.
But disingenuous as I don't really believe that this thread would shift anyone's opinion. Mine. Yours. Or anyone who might be reading along.
So?
You're really grasping at straws here.
As if my bringing up a thread on trolls were something necessary of squirming away from.
Ha!
Ah.
Well. If you're talking about me bringing up my post history altogether, then I guess you could say that it's a pre-emptive defensive tactic. I did assume that that was what you meant when you said the 'crucifixion' was about to begin or what the fuck ever. (I keep thinking of McNeely and his 'cocoon of horror.' Heh. Not saying I'm Tyson or anything. Far from. I've already mentioned several times my deficient flaming skills.) Afer all, you'd just brought up your own and then indicated a counterattack so I assumed that you were off doing the forum search on me.
Whatever.
Anyway.
If that's what you were talking about, then you should have made it clear. The quote you were responding to was me mentioning my thread history not being particularly inspiring. Which is a fact and, as I've said, is hardly defensive. Just the way things are.
No big deal.
Anyway. Red meat?
You mean the post that you basically ignored because of the joke appended at the end of it about making you About the Members mod?
Is that the red meat you're referring to?
More like a red rag, ain't it?
Red rag to a bull?
Seriously.
I'm disappointed in your reaction to that joke, man.
Doesn't matter much anyway, I suppose. You already know that I had a poor opinion of you, but I did consider you a bit of a joker and that you'd be able to roll with the punches on jibing jokes.
I've been called a child from time to time.
Yes, I have.
But, I don't think that only children like feeling appreciated.
I mean, look at you. You threw this huge fit when you found out that you're not appreciated. And as you've said, we've hardly ever had words so I don't see why my lack of appreciation of you would make such a big deal to you.
Are you a child or a man?
Ever considered suicide?
And, by the way, I think friend would be a better term than parent. But, even that's not right. More like peer.
Care to explain?
I thought I was making another funny.
What did you read into this one?
Don't recall asking your opinion on my stupidity.
Did you get that impression?
No. I was just asking a question.
I'd once thought that you wrote your own poetry, but then Water mentioned the band where you got one of your poems from and so I just asked if any of the poetry was yours or not.
I can't help it that you thought I was insulting your intelligence with a simple question.
And what does "its actually true" mean? That you don't have the intellect to write a poem or that you do?
Anyway, intellect is not the issue when it comes to writing poetry. Some people have the talent. Some don't. It has no bearing on intelligence.
Interesting these interpretations of yours.
Well. They would be. If I was really interested.
I just wish you'd accept that it was a joke and get the fuck over it.
That's too much to ask for though, isn't it?
I like the implied threat there.
The suspense.
Will he find the weaknesses in my posting history?
Will he not?
Is it possible that he can somehow prove my intellect is deficient as he seems to feel that I'm trying to do with him?
Oooh.
Thrilling.
Oh. Wait.
That's boredom.
What do you think of moderators trying to be inspiring rather than authoritarian pricks?
Sound like a good idea to you?
Hmm.
More posts.
Do you really?
I'll stop if you like.
It's sort of become... I dunno. A tradition.
I don't think it's any secret anymore.
I think you're back in.
Now. If you had maintained your disguise (i.e. your non-****** attitude) attitude then I'd probably never bring it up. But, if you'd have maintained the disguise then it'd never be an issue as you'd not be popping into threads with your trollish behavior which is generally the only times I ever poke at you with it. Right?
However, if you think it's a worry. I'll stop. And apologize for endangering you. I'd like nothing more than you not to have to hide.
I'll even delete this part of my post if you ask. No problems.
Megalomania, in that you think that I have anything to gain by taking you down or clawing over you or whatever.
You're just some dude. I gain no advantage in either letting you be or in taking you down.
You're hardly on my radar except as an annoyance because practically the only time you ever intrude into threads in which I take an interest is when you're trolling. Not always, mind. I've interacted with you seriously on rare occasion, but usually you poke your head into a thread which shortly after degenerates into chaos. Sometimes you start the chaos. Sometimes you're merely the carrion-feeder coming in for scraps. But, that's where my impression of you comes from.
Unfair?
Stop feeding at middens, then.
So. What is your deeper interest in your thread titled "justagirl'? Or 'Shrine to my Gendy'? Or 'Brits on Sciforums'? (You deeper interest there, of course, was to insult specific posters, yes?) 'Love blossoms...'? Any of those threads? Do any of them have any redeeming deeper value?
No.
Not a one.
They're all flamebait and gossipy.
Correct?
How am I being disingenuous by bringing them up?
Oh. Wait. By deeper interest, you mean do these threads indicate a deep interest in starting such threads and posting similarly in general?
Don't they?
I think those threads are rather indicative of much of your posting in general. It is, in fact, that type of posting which I am talking about when I talk about gossipy/flaming/whatever.
The correlation obviously stands. I'm not being disingenuous at all.
Simple stuff.
Personal attacks.
Ad hominem.
Dealing with the doings of others.
Gossip.
Duh der.
Difficult stuff.
I'll grant you another boon.
The term 'gossip' would generally connote a sort of sly talking about people behind their backs rather than to their face.
That's another reason why I concede that 'gossip' wasn't the best choice of terms.
This is a semantic issue and is hardly significant.
Well. We are discussing, primarily, both your personality and mine. Yes? Others have also been brought in from time to time. The 'gallery' that I'm waiting to 'chip in'.
And a flame intended to provoke is... what?
Trolling?
What you were with the first was insulting. Unnecessarily so.
I understood you though. The problem is that you seem to think that you've scored a point with your 'mutt' or whatever. I'd already thought of those points you brought up and, in fact, they are and were concerns of mine as well. That's why I made my post with the emphasis on responsibility over authority the way I did.
I implicitly addressed those issues, but only explicitly addressed them after you failed to understand that I wasn't advocating more moderation in the classical sense.
I hardly think that I deserve the title 'mutt' or accusations of poor logic.
But neither did I throw a shit fit over your term. Partly because your style is often this way. Insulting and provocative.
Partly because I'm not concerned about your opinion of me.
And partly because I felt your concerns were valid even if I'd already addressed them implicitly. I couldn't really blame you for failing to understand my emphasis on responsibility. Although, I believe that I did specifically address the fact that mods would be less authoritative after this move... After all this garbage I forget exactly.
What about them?
Are you referring to Valich being upset with my vulgarity or whatever?
Yeah. So?
I didn't take offense to your rhetoric.
I'm merely stating the fact that you came into this thread deliberatly being provocative and personal.
I'll just continue in my lack of respect instead.
No offense.
Heh. Tell me about it.
I'm considering deleting all this shit.
I'm infected by the dark side...
And. I appreciate your response.
Did you, by any chance, read my post way back before all this bullshit started?
Any thoughts on my idea?
Probably think it's unrealistic?
Aye.
Asshole!
It is lately that I've been noticing several edits.
I find some of the edits questionable.
Take, for instance, this thread.
Now. I suppose I can understand deleting mine and Gustav's shit.
Why?
Because it's entirely off-topic.
But, if we were arguing, even insulting each other, on-topic, then I'd think that editing would be unnecessary.
Perhaps the best bet for this 'discussion' Gustav and I are having is not actually deletion, but rather splitting it off and dumping it in the cesspool...
Or. To be wonderfully ironic. About the Members... Muaha!!!
See what I'm saying?
I really wonder at some of your choices.
Those posts of Gendanken's and Fountainhed's in your Black thread, for instance.
Do you really think they were wholly worthless?
Enough to just make them vanish like that?
Are you serious?
Those were songs, James.
They were songs and it wasn't a thread on science.
The first song, My Bitch is on the Rag, I thought of because of how people tend to get irate in here so often. It was my way of speaking of flame wars. Like this one. I guess.
The next song. The Four F's. I posted because I felt that it was the attitude of those involved in flames.
The 'pwned' mentality.
I suppose that those two songs were flip sides of the flame war issue. The first from an observer's stance, the second from the antagonist's stance.
Interestingly enough, I think that you are being misogynistic by confining the meaning of those songs to women. I wasn't. I thought they covered all genders. Especially as the internet is a genderless environment.
This reminds me of an episode of South Park where there was an issue with the State (or maybe town) flag. The flag showed a bunch of white guys hanging a black guy. There was a big stink and the flag was going to be outlawed. The kids didn't understand why. They liked the flag. It had history. So they joined the protest. Chef, a black man, took offense at the kids doing this, but it turns out that they weren't being racist. In fact, when they looked at the flag they didn't see a bunch of white guys hanging a black guy. They just saw a bunch of guys hanging another guy. They didn't even notice the color of their skin. The problem was solved by making it a white guy, brown guy, and a black guy hanging the black guy. Plus the guy getting hung had a smile on his face. Muaha!
Anyay.
You're the misogynist. Not I.
Yes. But doesn't the forum go through cycles where sometimes things will be acceptable and then other times they won't?
Plus, I don't think, from what I read, that their posts were worthy of deletion.
What, Fountainhed sad something about his dick. Right? Maybe that was too much. But there were valid points made on both sides that were also thrown out.
No. They're not clear. They change. The pendulum swings.
However, one can understand, as you say, some minimal standards, but sometimes minimal is less minimal than others.
I stand by my belief that this period with little moderator influence speaks for itself when it comes to what people should be allowed to post and what they shouldn't.
Things have been nice and orderly around here without the need for heavy moderation.
No. But you have influence. Do you deny this?
You're the sole supermod remaining. You are also an admin, are you not? Or was Goofy the only admin other than Porfiry?
Gustav,
Sigh.
How utterly boring you are.
To respond.
To not respond?
Well.
I'm somewhat bored.
And I suppose that the topic is already thoroughly buried underneath your hurt feelings anyway.
So.
Why not?
I still am considering deleting my posts to you.
Maybe the better solution would be an entirely new thread.
I find it ironic that eventually James will most likely come in here and take action. Moderator laxness indeed.
A simple joke of mine was reacted to with a great fury which indicates just how close to home I hit. Facts? Semantic issues, douchebag.
Let me outline the course of events seeing as how you seem to be obviously hard of understanding.
I responded to your post about the issue of moderation and inspiration.
I tacked on a joke at the end of the post.
From that point on you've been obsessed with defending yourself.
From a joke.
A stupid trifling joke.
It's funny watching your defenses blow up like this though.
Soft spots require the largest walls.
And this too shows your inner fears and paranoias.
When did I attack your intellect?
I attack your motive. I call you a troll because of your motivations.
You even admitted that you see flame wars as a test of intellect.
As I said, you're proud of your flaming skill, yes?
No.
You can go on this huge rampage about semantics or what the fuck ever but it doesn't change the fact that I used the word gossip as merely the theme of a joke. A joke. A joke to which you took great offense. Thus indicating how sensitive you are about being called a gossip. And how you even equate this with slights to your intellect in some manner.
Also, I've already explained how flames and flaming are often personal matters and are quite similar to gossip. You've brought in the term 'ad hom' which is an even better term than gossip.
You're not dumb though. You understand exactly what I've been saying and that's why you're going to such pains to keep this on a defensive level. You're not attacking me because to do so you'd have to resort to ad hom and thus would fall prey to the accusation of gossip.
Right?
When I mentioned your flaming consisting of ad homs in a previous post, I was referring more to observations of flames elsewhere. Just so you know. Although, your initial posts contain ad homs. Before the whole gossip issue was brought up.
Idiot. (There's your attack on your intellect. Happy now?)
Admission of impreciseness.
So. To you 'mutt' has a specific meaning? Denoting poor logic skills?
Is this not an ad hom? An attack on the speaker rather than upon his argument?
How gossipy of you.
As to being dishonest.
Douche. I've made no such admission.
The only thing I've said that could be taken along those means is when I said that perhaps I was somewhat disingenuous in my use of the term gossip merely because it was a fucking joke and thus was not scrutinized for preciseness.
This is a semantic issue where perhaps the words chosen were not the best that could have been chosen.
But, you have to focus on this because it's all you have, right?
Great victory you have there.
Semantics are wonderful, yes?
Oh? Tell me more. What 'butt buddies' might you be referring to?
I'd love to hear all the latest gossip. Do tell.
That's right.
Debunkers are pretty much as inane as the debunked.
I'm not saying that I don't find some of the posts entertaining or even educational. But, I find the whole debunker/debunked dynamic pointless.
The debunkers often trip over themselves in their rush to debunk. Really quite disgusting.
But. As I said. To each his own.
Not really.
I only wonder at your problem with accepting the truth of your posts.
I'm not speaking of your posts in WE&P or in pseudoscience as I have not really read any of them. I can't judge. Those are forums in which you obviously find interest and the few that I have read of them seem to be seriously written for the most part so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt with them.
It's the rest that I have no respect for.
And, all I can say is that the vast majority of the posts of yours I've come across I judge poorly.
That's all.
I know what I've seen. Perhaps I've missed out on a lot of your posts. Maybe fate has decreed that I only bump into your posts when you're being a spammy troll. I don't know. I only know what I've seen and what I've seen, for the most part, is not good.
As I said before, there's nothing that you can do to change my opinion. So there's no point to all this.
An example of your poor interpretation skills.
I merely said I was surprised that you posted so much in pseudoscience. That's all.
Why did I say it?
Because I was surprised to find out that you posted so much in pseudoscience. I can't help that you read some sort of admonition in my words. I really don't give a shit where you post. As long as you don't ruin any threads I'm involved in.
Like this one.
Yeah? And?
As I said, I've been around the forums. I've seen your posts. I've seen threads get ruined by your posts and flamebait. I have a memory.
I sure as fuck don't go nosing around to see what Gustav is doing today.
And how fucking hard is it for you to understand that I addressed this very point a mere quote or two later? Difficult?
But it's so much fun sharing all the gossip with you.
The forum members that you're engaging in flames with.
That was difficult.
How can you deny your posting style? You've even admitted it with the simple semantic change of flame for gossip.
You're going to tell me you don't get personal in your flames?
Riiiight.
Uh.
No. It was you that thought it pertinent to bring your history to the table.
I merely made a joke about you leering at the girls and being a little gossip.
You're the one who felt a history lesson was in order.
Beware. We will get you, Gustav.
The whole forum is behind me. I have a phantom army at my heels.
Heh.
Intimidate. With 'we'.
Douche.
My. You're so tiresome.
Flaming. Personal attack. Gossip. Ad hom.
Yes. They are connected.
And seeing as how I am currently engaged in a conversation which deals in a personal analysis of you and your posting style then I am engaging in what I am deriding in you.
Yes.
But, it's more the amount of time you spend in such pursuits that I deride in you.
Everyone flames on occasion.
But you have already admitted that you do it in overdrive.
And. Concede?
Concede what?
You want me to say that you're not a gossipy little flamer?
I won't. It's the truth.
Your inability to comprehend simple points in your 'mood' is really getting annoying.
I said, clearly, that being disingenuous is not necessarily a part of being a troll.
The operative concept in being a troll is the stirring up of shit purposefully. One can do that while being completely truthful.
So. Would it be proper for me to call you a mutt then?
You are obviously having problems with your brain.
I'm not really calling you stupid. I'm actually just saying that you're having a hard time seeing reality. I conjecture it's because of your defensiveness about this issue.
Could be wrong.
It's funny. The way you latch on to my honesty and hold it up as a beacon of your victory. As if you're squeezing some admission out of me at great discomfort to myself.
You used to spend more time flaming and spreading flamebait than you do recently.
So?
I'm qualifying anything by saying this?
Cannibalizing?
No. Merely stating what I see.
But, you go ahead and think that you're crucifying me or whatever.
Not quite.
You should really stop quoting things out of context.
I say somewhat because my bringing up this thread really served little purpose.
You accuse me of playing to some kind of gallery or whatever, but the truth is that all I'm doing in here is talking to you.
So. My bringing up this thread is not really... important to anything.
It doesn't really stack into the evidence of my opinion of you as a troll. Especially as how it's only recently that I've found about this thread (you posted a link to it somewhere. I forget where.) but moreso because, as you say, posting about trolls doesn't make you a troll.
I just found it funny that you'd post on trolls and that's why I brought it up.
Therefore. Somewhat disingenuous in my bringing up of the thread.
Squirming?
Squirming from what?
As I've already said a number of times, this whole thing is pointless as my opinion of you is already what it is. I have nothing to squirm from.
My point is that, in my observations of you, you spend a great deal of time and emphasis on spammy and trollish posts.
It's that simple.
This thread is simply a bit of icing on the cake.
Circumstantial evidence, if you will.
But disingenuous as I don't really believe that this thread would shift anyone's opinion. Mine. Yours. Or anyone who might be reading along.
So?
You're really grasping at straws here.
As if my bringing up a thread on trolls were something necessary of squirming away from.
Ha!
Ah.
Well. If you're talking about me bringing up my post history altogether, then I guess you could say that it's a pre-emptive defensive tactic. I did assume that that was what you meant when you said the 'crucifixion' was about to begin or what the fuck ever. (I keep thinking of McNeely and his 'cocoon of horror.' Heh. Not saying I'm Tyson or anything. Far from. I've already mentioned several times my deficient flaming skills.) Afer all, you'd just brought up your own and then indicated a counterattack so I assumed that you were off doing the forum search on me.
Whatever.
Anyway.
If that's what you were talking about, then you should have made it clear. The quote you were responding to was me mentioning my thread history not being particularly inspiring. Which is a fact and, as I've said, is hardly defensive. Just the way things are.
No big deal.
Anyway. Red meat?
You mean the post that you basically ignored because of the joke appended at the end of it about making you About the Members mod?
Is that the red meat you're referring to?
More like a red rag, ain't it?
Red rag to a bull?
Seriously.
I'm disappointed in your reaction to that joke, man.
Doesn't matter much anyway, I suppose. You already know that I had a poor opinion of you, but I did consider you a bit of a joker and that you'd be able to roll with the punches on jibing jokes.
I've been called a child from time to time.
Yes, I have.
But, I don't think that only children like feeling appreciated.
I mean, look at you. You threw this huge fit when you found out that you're not appreciated. And as you've said, we've hardly ever had words so I don't see why my lack of appreciation of you would make such a big deal to you.
Are you a child or a man?
Ever considered suicide?
And, by the way, I think friend would be a better term than parent. But, even that's not right. More like peer.
Care to explain?
I thought I was making another funny.
What did you read into this one?
Don't recall asking your opinion on my stupidity.
Did you get that impression?
No. I was just asking a question.
I'd once thought that you wrote your own poetry, but then Water mentioned the band where you got one of your poems from and so I just asked if any of the poetry was yours or not.
I can't help it that you thought I was insulting your intelligence with a simple question.
And what does "its actually true" mean? That you don't have the intellect to write a poem or that you do?
Anyway, intellect is not the issue when it comes to writing poetry. Some people have the talent. Some don't. It has no bearing on intelligence.
Interesting these interpretations of yours.
Well. They would be. If I was really interested.
I just wish you'd accept that it was a joke and get the fuck over it.
That's too much to ask for though, isn't it?
I like the implied threat there.
The suspense.
Will he find the weaknesses in my posting history?
Will he not?
Is it possible that he can somehow prove my intellect is deficient as he seems to feel that I'm trying to do with him?
Oooh.
Thrilling.
Oh. Wait.
That's boredom.
What do you think of moderators trying to be inspiring rather than authoritarian pricks?
Sound like a good idea to you?
Hmm.
More posts.
Do you really?
I'll stop if you like.
It's sort of become... I dunno. A tradition.
I don't think it's any secret anymore.
I think you're back in.
Now. If you had maintained your disguise (i.e. your non-****** attitude) attitude then I'd probably never bring it up. But, if you'd have maintained the disguise then it'd never be an issue as you'd not be popping into threads with your trollish behavior which is generally the only times I ever poke at you with it. Right?
However, if you think it's a worry. I'll stop. And apologize for endangering you. I'd like nothing more than you not to have to hide.
I'll even delete this part of my post if you ask. No problems.
Megalomania, in that you think that I have anything to gain by taking you down or clawing over you or whatever.
You're just some dude. I gain no advantage in either letting you be or in taking you down.
You're hardly on my radar except as an annoyance because practically the only time you ever intrude into threads in which I take an interest is when you're trolling. Not always, mind. I've interacted with you seriously on rare occasion, but usually you poke your head into a thread which shortly after degenerates into chaos. Sometimes you start the chaos. Sometimes you're merely the carrion-feeder coming in for scraps. But, that's where my impression of you comes from.
Unfair?
Stop feeding at middens, then.
So. What is your deeper interest in your thread titled "justagirl'? Or 'Shrine to my Gendy'? Or 'Brits on Sciforums'? (You deeper interest there, of course, was to insult specific posters, yes?) 'Love blossoms...'? Any of those threads? Do any of them have any redeeming deeper value?
No.
Not a one.
They're all flamebait and gossipy.
Correct?
How am I being disingenuous by bringing them up?
Oh. Wait. By deeper interest, you mean do these threads indicate a deep interest in starting such threads and posting similarly in general?
Don't they?
I think those threads are rather indicative of much of your posting in general. It is, in fact, that type of posting which I am talking about when I talk about gossipy/flaming/whatever.
The correlation obviously stands. I'm not being disingenuous at all.
Simple stuff.
Personal attacks.
Ad hominem.
Dealing with the doings of others.
Gossip.
Duh der.
Difficult stuff.
I'll grant you another boon.
The term 'gossip' would generally connote a sort of sly talking about people behind their backs rather than to their face.
That's another reason why I concede that 'gossip' wasn't the best choice of terms.
This is a semantic issue and is hardly significant.
Well. We are discussing, primarily, both your personality and mine. Yes? Others have also been brought in from time to time. The 'gallery' that I'm waiting to 'chip in'.
And a flame intended to provoke is... what?
Trolling?
What you were with the first was insulting. Unnecessarily so.
I understood you though. The problem is that you seem to think that you've scored a point with your 'mutt' or whatever. I'd already thought of those points you brought up and, in fact, they are and were concerns of mine as well. That's why I made my post with the emphasis on responsibility over authority the way I did.
I implicitly addressed those issues, but only explicitly addressed them after you failed to understand that I wasn't advocating more moderation in the classical sense.
I hardly think that I deserve the title 'mutt' or accusations of poor logic.
But neither did I throw a shit fit over your term. Partly because your style is often this way. Insulting and provocative.
Partly because I'm not concerned about your opinion of me.
And partly because I felt your concerns were valid even if I'd already addressed them implicitly. I couldn't really blame you for failing to understand my emphasis on responsibility. Although, I believe that I did specifically address the fact that mods would be less authoritative after this move... After all this garbage I forget exactly.
What about them?
Are you referring to Valich being upset with my vulgarity or whatever?
Yeah. So?
I didn't take offense to your rhetoric.
I'm merely stating the fact that you came into this thread deliberatly being provocative and personal.
I'll just continue in my lack of respect instead.
No offense.
vert
Let me outline the course of events seeing as how you seem to be obviously hard of understanding.
I responded to your post about the issue of moderation and inspiration.
I tacked on a joke at the end of the post.
From that point on you've been obsessed with defending yourself.
From a joke.
A stupid trifling joke..
the depths you sink to in order to maintain your position. you outright lie. look at the sequence of posts
i then go on ask you to justify your "joke"
and guess what? you fucking do
now if it is a joke, why did you not inform me? who goes around trying to justify a joke?
your pathetic attempt to rewrite history is laughable.
i did not have to defend myself as no accusations had yet been made
now who is it that does not understand the sequence of events?
is this not the basis on which all subsequent comprehension lies?
and you do not see it?
how utterly stupid you are
Let me outline the course of events seeing as how you seem to be obviously hard of understanding.
I responded to your post about the issue of moderation and inspiration.
I tacked on a joke at the end of the post.
From that point on you've been obsessed with defending yourself.
From a joke.
A stupid trifling joke..
the depths you sink to in order to maintain your position. you outright lie. look at the sequence of posts
invert_nexus said:
i then go on ask you to justify your "joke"
Gustav said:
and guess what? you fucking do
invert_nexus said:
now if it is a joke, why did you not inform me? who goes around trying to justify a joke?
your pathetic attempt to rewrite history is laughable.
i did not have to defend myself as no accusations had yet been made
now who is it that does not understand the sequence of events?
is this not the basis on which all subsequent comprehension lies?
and you do not see it?
how utterly stupid you are
The joke went on.
I kept on jibing you.
I jibed you with leering at the girls.
I jibed you with being interested in the gossipy shit down there.
I jibed you with your posts revolving around the doings of others.
I then attempted to temper the jibes with the fact that you did post seriously in the WE&P forum. At that time I wasn't aware of you extent of your pseudoscience posts or I would have mentioned them as well.
Now.
An important thing to realize is that just because I'm calling this a joke, doesn't mean that I'm not being truthful.
It's a joke because I felt it was unimportant enough to merit only being a joke.
I honestly thought you'd take the jibe. Jibe back a little. And the thread would go on.
But, anyway, it was a joke/jibe based on my real opinion of you.
An opinion based on a style I thought so obvious that I never thought you'd react like you did over it.
You.
Do you now see it?
Look. You didn't respond defensively until today. The last you had to say yesterday was calling me catty. I was disappointed that you decided to not continue the conversation on topic. I was also surprised that this would have been the extent of your jibe-back.
Little did I know you were just biding your time.
Stewing all night, were you?
Pretty much.
If you'd acknowledge the joking/jibing nature of the beginnings then maybe you'd get over it.
You'd still need to get over the fact that I don't think highly of you, but that should really be a piece of cake.
Speaking of beginnings. Seeing as how Dune has been brought up a few times already:
A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct.
Perhaps I should have realized that my jibe was, in fact, a beginning. If I had realized that it was a beginning then perhaps I would have taken more care. But, I didn't think it was a beginning. I thought it was a trifling joke that would elicit a jibe back or two and then it would be over.
Would you like me to apologize for hurting your feelings? I really didn't mean to.
I can't retract my opinions and/or any of the things I've said. But, I can say that I didn't intend to hurt your feelings.
I honestly thought you'd understand why I have this opinion of you. You seem to cultivate it purposefully.
Yes. Yes. There's the issue of 'gossip' not being the proper word. But do you understand what I've said correlating gossip with ad homs, flaming, personal analysis, whatever?
I think that this is perhaps at the heart of the issue as you've already admitted that flames take up a goodly portion of your post history. If you can accept my explanation for why it is that I chose gossip rather than a better description then perhaps this whole thing can end.
Maybe?
You know. So much has been said back and forth between us that it's getting difficult to remember what's been said and why and when and in response to what and blah blah.
You brought up the poem thing at a point where I'd forgotten exactly why I'd mentioned it to begin with. I just went back to reread those Children of Dune quotes (I really love Dune.) and the poem thing came right afterwards.
I wasn't attacking your intellect.
I was attacking your motivation. Again.
But not in the same way as when I was calling you a troll.
Rather, I was accusing you of not caring about the forums.
I likened the forums to an ailing friend. And I asked what you'd do to help that ailing friend.
Odd how you thought I was attacking your intelligence. And that I would do so with a 'raggedy ass poem'.
You brought up the poem thing at a point where I'd forgotten exactly why I'd mentioned it to begin with. I just went back to reread those Children of Dune quotes (I really love Dune.) and the poem thing came right afterwards.
I wasn't attacking your intellect.
I was attacking your motivation. Again.
But not in the same way as when I was calling you a troll.
Rather, I was accusing you of not caring about the forums.
I likened the forums to an ailing friend. And I asked what you'd do to help that ailing friend.
Odd how you thought I was attacking your intelligence. And that I would do so with a 'raggedy ass poem'.
invert_nexus:
Notice that I haven't done anything with your discussion with Gustav in this thread, even though it is off topic, and it involves personal insults flying back and forth. Why? Because I judge that you're both enjoying yourselves. Nobody is asking me for action. (You may not realise, but many deleted posts in sciforums are actually the result of complaints by other posters, which is fair enough in my opinion.)
Probably not, but I don't have time to wade through every post, keeping the good and expunging the bad. The lesson here is: if you write something you want to stay on the forum, don't mix it up with stuff that breaches the forum rules.
That isn't an excuse to post material which is demeaning to women.
I think that a song called "My bitch is on the rag" is fairly obviously referring to women. Don't you?
The internet isn't genderless. Whatever gave you that idea? Anyway, that's another discussion.
No. However, personally I try to err on the side of allowing free speech. Of course, it would be possible to delete all breaches of forum rules, no matter how minor, but I don't think anybody would be happy about that - least of all you. So, where there is doubt or ignorance of the rules, I tend to let things slide a little. If things require it, I will send a warning by PM. In the cases of clear breaches, especially by long-term posters who should know better, I will delete posts without comment. If people have an issue, I trust they will take it up with me, which they often do.
Well, all I can say is that when you're a moderator, you will be able to make these kinds of decisions. In the meantime, I have to do it.
And I would say that the "little moderator influence" you mention is something of an illusion. The fact that you feel there isn't too much moderation suggests to me that the moderators are doing their jobs well. It is when the majority start complaining that there may be a moderation problem.
I am not admin, so there are a number of things I cannot do.
I think goofy is a supermod, too. Only Porfiry is admin.
Notice that I haven't done anything with your discussion with Gustav in this thread, even though it is off topic, and it involves personal insults flying back and forth. Why? Because I judge that you're both enjoying yourselves. Nobody is asking me for action. (You may not realise, but many deleted posts in sciforums are actually the result of complaints by other posters, which is fair enough in my opinion.)
Probably not, but I don't have time to wade through every post, keeping the good and expunging the bad. The lesson here is: if you write something you want to stay on the forum, don't mix it up with stuff that breaches the forum rules.
That isn't an excuse to post material which is demeaning to women.
I think that a song called "My bitch is on the rag" is fairly obviously referring to women. Don't you?
The internet isn't genderless. Whatever gave you that idea? Anyway, that's another discussion.
No. However, personally I try to err on the side of allowing free speech. Of course, it would be possible to delete all breaches of forum rules, no matter how minor, but I don't think anybody would be happy about that - least of all you. So, where there is doubt or ignorance of the rules, I tend to let things slide a little. If things require it, I will send a warning by PM. In the cases of clear breaches, especially by long-term posters who should know better, I will delete posts without comment. If people have an issue, I trust they will take it up with me, which they often do.
Well, all I can say is that when you're a moderator, you will be able to make these kinds of decisions. In the meantime, I have to do it.
And I would say that the "little moderator influence" you mention is something of an illusion. The fact that you feel there isn't too much moderation suggests to me that the moderators are doing their jobs well. It is when the majority start complaining that there may be a moderation problem.
I am not admin, so there are a number of things I cannot do.
I think goofy is a supermod, too. Only Porfiry is admin.
Now the 14th most succesful thread in 11 pages of Open Government!
James, I'll get to you later. I'm on my way to work.
Roman, Pretty much. Yeah. I stepped aside from intellectual pursuits at a crucial time in my life and set up the rest of my life pretty much 1, 2, 3. No real surprise where I ended up. Sure, there was a time when I was younger (like grade school) when I had dreams of being a scientist and whatnot, but I was disillusioned of such things rather early on. Such was not to be. Why do you ask?
Hamster, What criteria do you use to measure a successful thread? Post count? Why?
Roman, Pretty much. Yeah. I stepped aside from intellectual pursuits at a crucial time in my life and set up the rest of my life pretty much 1, 2, 3. No real surprise where I ended up. Sure, there was a time when I was younger (like grade school) when I had dreams of being a scientist and whatnot, but I was disillusioned of such things rather early on. Such was not to be. Why do you ask?
Hamster, What criteria do you use to measure a successful thread? Post count? Why?
Why do I ask?
I'm young and I'm wondering where I'm going with my life. I was just curious if someone with as much grey matter as yourself decided on blue color work and was alright with it, or what.
I ask publicly because PMs sort of creep me out.
And I ask here because this thread is... way off topic, in a forum no one cares about.
And you seem to respond best to the personal, and I figured that if things between you and gustav or James died down, you'd continue with your verbose responses to my proddings. That way Communist could have his most successful thread (popular, long-winded, two old men shaking fists at each other...) be the most popular in this sub forum.
And I think that's an exhaustive list.
I'm young and I'm wondering where I'm going with my life. I was just curious if someone with as much grey matter as yourself decided on blue color work and was alright with it, or what.
I ask publicly because PMs sort of creep me out.
And I ask here because this thread is... way off topic, in a forum no one cares about.
And you seem to respond best to the personal, and I figured that if things between you and gustav or James died down, you'd continue with your verbose responses to my proddings. That way Communist could have his most successful thread (popular, long-winded, two old men shaking fists at each other...) be the most popular in this sub forum.
And I think that's an exhaustive list.
Power Base
Its an intellectual race,
to secure a power base.
So sing your 'I can' tune,
Loud enough for all to hear
Moving threads and pruning forums
I've heard is no small beer.
Maybe you'll set the place on fire
And the flaming will cease
Maybe your insights will 'wow'
And lead to world peace.
So sing your 'I can' tune,
Loud enough for all to hear.
Its an intellectual race,
to secure a power base.
c20
Its an intellectual race,
to secure a power base.
So sing your 'I can' tune,
Loud enough for all to hear
Moving threads and pruning forums
I've heard is no small beer.
Maybe you'll set the place on fire
And the flaming will cease
Maybe your insights will 'wow'
And lead to world peace.
So sing your 'I can' tune,
Loud enough for all to hear.
Its an intellectual race,
to secure a power base.
c20
Roman said:
Don't mind me of giving my opinion here.
Blue collar work is ok to do. No responsibility. I enjoy it occasionally. But in the end they are all dead end jobs. You could end up spending your life in the same factory, because it is the easiest thing to do. And you could have an ok life doing it.
But in the end science is better I think. Your life is filled with insecurity. You have no clue if you will have a job in 3 years time. Or even next year. But there are more possibilities to make your life interesting. You are surrounded by smart people. Most of them are boring, but the chances of finding some intellectual stimulation are greater than in the factory (although I have experienced it is not impossible to get it there). You get to travel, live in other countries. You get paid for doing something extremely silly (well, I do). My wife was in the lab the other day and saw me working, and was just laughing out loud; 'you call that work?'. I'm a free man doing my 'work' at the moment, and when I was a PhD student. I did whatever I fancied to do. That is something quite valuable. You could of course have your own company, but then you immediately have all the responsibility.
No it isn't really.
Of course you can choose some kind of safe course in science too. But that is just boring.
But do you really want to go through life just paying the rent?
I work(ed) part time in a genetics lab. I'm currently on leave without pay, as I'm going to school several thousand miles away.
Work for the feds. Payed a little above minimum wage. Mostly grunt work, though I got opportunities to do my own research.
What I do is extremely silly. I move water droplets around to find out whether some species of eel grass is actually another kind of eel grass. Population genetics for very unsexy organisms.
Great hours, though. Great people. As you say, all very bright, most of them quite interesting. Bit 'o job insecurity, what with Bush and Congress and the Budget Deficit. Opportunities for field work.
My current course is in economics. I should probably do biology instead. But I don't know if I want to end up a biologist.
Work for the feds. Payed a little above minimum wage. Mostly grunt work, though I got opportunities to do my own research.
What I do is extremely silly. I move water droplets around to find out whether some species of eel grass is actually another kind of eel grass. Population genetics for very unsexy organisms.
Great hours, though. Great people. As you say, all very bright, most of them quite interesting. Bit 'o job insecurity, what with Bush and Congress and the Budget Deficit. Opportunities for field work.
I don't know yet. Maybe I do.spuriousmonkey said:
My current course is in economics. I should probably do biology instead. But I don't know if I want to end up a biologist.
invert_nexus said:
Post count, yes. Because otherwsie I would actually have to read all the threads and find out which one contains blahblahblah you get the picture.
heh
it was quite instructive to read james's take on this affair and contrast with the mutt, vert. allow me to elaborate
look at the desperation. this frantic desire to have this flame war disappear.
look at this nazi who desperately wants to be a mod and mold scifoums in his image actually desirous of censoring thoughts; and yet, will throw the ultimate hissy fit as to his right to post some childish and vulgar lyrics. the sheer fucking hypocrisy and gall
now take a look at moderator that has endured flack from this very same nazi as to his moderating methods. lets look at what he has to say....
casual, relaxed, fairminded and adult
the sheer irony
vert. you are unfit to be a member of this board. you insidiously seek to undermine and restrict freedoms that we have enjoyed for the better part of decade with your evil machinations. you cast aspersions on the managers of this site with your constant criticism and meddlesome habits
sciforums will manage quite well without you
go on. have the strength of your convictions and get the fuck out
it was quite instructive to read james's take on this affair and contrast with the mutt, vert. allow me to elaborate
invert_nexus said:
invert_nexus said:
invert_nexus said:
invert_nexus said:
look at the desperation. this frantic desire to have this flame war disappear.
look at this nazi who desperately wants to be a mod and mold scifoums in his image actually desirous of censoring thoughts; and yet, will throw the ultimate hissy fit as to his right to post some childish and vulgar lyrics. the sheer fucking hypocrisy and gall
now take a look at moderator that has endured flack from this very same nazi as to his moderating methods. lets look at what he has to say....
James R said:
casual, relaxed, fairminded and adult
the sheer irony
vert. you are unfit to be a member of this board. you insidiously seek to undermine and restrict freedoms that we have enjoyed for the better part of decade with your evil machinations. you cast aspersions on the managers of this site with your constant criticism and meddlesome habits
sciforums will manage quite well without you
James R said:
go on. have the strength of your convictions and get the fuck out
- Status