Re: parmalee's warning for inciting violence

[James R]

Oh, look, it's another disgruntled poster crawling out of the woodwork to jump on the parmalee bandwagon! How suprising and delightful!

given you well realized predilection for treating rightwing posters softer than left do you honestly believe you have a pot to piss in here?

You shouldn't tell lies.

again lets not forget you are ok with death threats james don't pretend you are not.

Didn't your Mom teach you not to tell lies?

you've shown since you don't like me its ok to threaten to kill me.

Be aware that if you keep telling lies, there might be consequences.

If you want to hurl accusations, you'd better be ready with the evidence to support them. You're not bringing it, so far. You'll need to do much much better if this isn't just a drive-by shooting, and you intend to pursue this line.

what ever flaws tiassa has at least he has principles it a shame you only care about defending the worst posters here and attacking anyone who dares criticize you.

Stop being a cry baby. You're supposed to be an adult. Grow up.

than why was the person who threatened my not banned?

Did you report the offending post? Who was this person? Why don't you link the offending post?

because you favor rightwing posters and think its ok for them to threaten people. perhaps you should try being honest.

Don't tell lies. Really, just stop.

 

[James R]

parmalee:

At this point, I'm not entirely sure why I'm still bothering with you. Your complaint about my moderations has now been covered in more detail than should ever have been necessary, so I'm going to stop talking about that now. But you have made some other comments.

I see that pjdude1219 - a formerly banned serial offender - has offered to hitch his wagon to yours. I'd be careful if I was you about taking him up on his offer. When you lay down with pigs, all you get is dirty, as they say.

James, on the other hand... I've got a serious problem with how he is addressing me

You're worried that I'm not sufficiently deferrent towards you and your concerns, given how deferrent you have been towards me and all? Boo hoo, parmalee.

For starters, this should never have been an issue. But given that you decided to make it one, there are several different ways you could have approached it. You chose this way. You apparently don't know when to stop, either, a bit like pjdude.

... and I have witnessed this sort of behavior from him with a number of other posters in the past (for the record, I'm not talking about paddoboy here, nor whatstheirnames--the posters who frequently resurface and post wackadoo physics shit.

You are talking, I assume, about my attitude towards posters who have no respect for their readers, for science, or for the truth. Tell me why I should respect such people, once they have a proven track record of mendacity?

Some of these posters, to whom I am referring, are , sadly, long gone and before your time, I believe.

Why are you sad about them?

I don't get it, really.

Do you generally have problems working people out - in your "real life", I mean? I ask only because there seems to be some kind of disconnect with you.

I "called him out," I suppose, for what I perceived as sloppy moderation (my contention is that I was "flaming," or provoking--not inciting. Big difference.). He asked for the context, and I provided. I feel like we should have been able to have had a reasonable discussion...

We did have a reasonable discussion.

... whether or not we wound up in agreement with each other at the end being inconsequential--simply having the discussion and trying to understand/appreciate the other's perspective is what matters.

I understood your perspective six months ago.

But that, clearly, is not what happened here, and frankly, I'm just sick and tired of it.

Then stop. Why do you people find it so hard to just let things go? Why not act like an adult and take some responsibility for your own actions, rather than looking for somebody else to blame all the time?

 

[DaveC426913]

James is actually the one who reposted the passage (sans context--I subsequently provided the context). Previously, it had been stricken from the thread (the other thread. If it is actually criminal to utter such, or believed to be, then why would he repost it?

For the same reason it is OK for a prosecutor or judge to repeat what a slanderer said, and for the same reason that a police officer is not normally charged with assault with a deadly weapon when they have to shoot a suspect.

Because the process of an authority prosecuting an infraction is not subject to the same restrictions as actually committing the infraction.

 

[DaveC426913]

(The full post, by the way, with context is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/re-parmalees-warning-for-inciting-violence.163931/#post-3660250)

Sorry. No it isn't. The offending parts have been redacted by moderation.

Does post #4 contain the unredacted text?

 

[Bells]

Mod Note

I have kept out of this, but this is now getting out of hand.. It seems everyone with an axe to grind is making an appearance. So I'd like to note a few things.. Not because I have an axe to grind, but because someone has to put a stop to whatever it is that is happening here.

Firstly Parmalee..

It would seem that our moderator is not going to provide the context, so I shall. Here is the full post in question:

http://sciforums.com/threads/corona-virus-2019-ncov.162778/page-96#post-3642877

The full quote from your comment - unedited from the one linked above:

A note to Americans:

Viruses don't wait for elections.

A couple of weeks back, Dr. Fauci, being cautiously optimistic and conservative which is appropriate, I guess?, suggested that we will likely be seeing 100,000 new cases a day sometime soon. Ha! We're at like 70 or 80 thousands new cases a day already. And half the country won't even wear a freakin' mask, and half of the states' governors (the Republican ones, that is) are doing very little (or nothing) to address this and other problems. And the federal government? We don't have one. Rather, we've got a bunch of psychopathic, fascist fuckwits who are doing everything in their power to fuck over their constituents, in order to line their coffers and preserve their obscene wealth.

I'm fairly certain that the U.S. Constitution, somewhere in the Bill of Rights methinks, advises for such circumstances--something about altering and abolishing a government that becomes destructive of it's desired ends, i.e., the protection of the citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I ain't recommending anything, I'm just saying that I think it's well within yours, mine, anyone's rights to forcibly remove, 'take out' (again, Trump talks about 'taking out' U.S. citizens all the time, so...) or just plain put a bullet into the heads of Trump, de Santis, or any one of these mass murderous fucks. In fact, I think it might actually be our duty to do such, not sure on that part.​

I understand you have said that you have not actually said what you have been accused of saying?

I was not involved in the original discussion back in the middle of last year when you received a 20 point infraction for the post that is indented above and the moderated format can be found here: http://sciforums.com/threads/corona-virus-2019-ncov.162778/page-96#post-3642877

So let's break down a few things about the post in question..

You start it off as a note to Americans - presumably to other Americans posting on or reading this website.

You address the handling of the virus by the Trump administration and simply how much they have failed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

Your next paragraph makes a comment about the US Constitution and how you believe the Bill of Rights has an amendment for how to handle such a circumstance as what the US faced in the last 12 months.. The desire to end the sitting Government, but you seemed unsure.

Then came the problematic part of your post.

You start off by saying that you do not recommend anything, but you then posit that it is within the rights of yourself, others and anyone's rights (presumably the Americans you made the note to?), to use force to remove said Government.. You then say that you think it's your duty to kill them, but you just aren't too sure on that part.

That is how it read. Literally.

You say you aren't recommending it, but perhaps it's simply your (collective American) duty to murder the President and others within his administration and Government involved in how COVID is being handled..

Let me put it to you this way.

If Trump had gotten up on that podium during that rally and said he did not recommend it, but perhaps it is "our duty" to march on the Capitol and they marched on the Capitol, would he have incited the crowd to march on the Capitol and riot?

If anyone says that it's "our duty" to act, it's in invitation, a reminder of what is expected of others, to act.

That is inciting violence.

Your intention (which you say was not to incite) do not actually match the words you typed out back in July of last year.

Especially when that "duty" comment comes after telling readers that it's within your collective rights to "take out" or forcibly remove, and then a not so subtle reminder of how Trump talks about taking out US citizens all the time.. "or just plain put a bullet into the heads of Trump, de Santis, or any one of these mass murderous fucks."

Perhaps you don't realise how you came across. But that is how you came across.

@ James,

Crap "parody?" Fine. Irresponsible? Sure. Inflammatory? Yep. Just don't call it incitement.

I consider my audience carefully, as well as the present state of affairs in the US. Terrorism, mass shootings and the like are committed almost exclusively by rightwing lunatics. The left haven't got the arsenal, nor the inclination. Now, in the most unlikely event that one of these rightwing nutters is actually reading sciforums--again, c'mon?--you think they're gonna consider my ruminations? An epileptic, mischlinge, communist lumpenprole--over Trump, Tucker Carlson, Hannity, et al?

You are on a public forum, where everyone can read your words, members and non-members alike. Your post would show up in a Google search if people searched for certain key words. Legally, we are responsible for for what appears here and what is allowed to remain on this website.

You are correct when you said you are not a public figure. But that isn't the point. Your notoriety, fame, etc, does not matter. You directed a comment to your fellow Americans that posited whether it was your collective duty to act against the sitting Government by putting a bullet in their heads.. That is how that comment reads. And you did it on a public forum that anyone and everyone can read and have access to. It only takes one person..

James gave you 20 points. Had I seen your comment first, you'd have gotten more and I would have deleted the entire post. Your comment was not just inciting violence. It was a call, a reminder, of what you feel the duty of Americans should be doing and then followed it up with that bullets into the heads comment and named names.

You are one of my favourite posters on this site Parmalee. I always enjoy reading your posts. But you are wrong in what you said back then and while you say it was never your intention, your words that you post is all we can see.. We cannot read your mind.

To give you an answer, yes, you do have the ability to remove the Government or to take them out. It's called an election. It is not, in any way, shape or form, the ability, permission or "duty" to murder them, regardless of what they have done or are doing. Congress and others have other means, such as Article 25 or impeachment. You, as a citizen, have the option of an election.

However, I am not an elected official--nor am I the president! With respect to free speech, private citizens are generally accorded much more leeway. Context is everything--take many a comedy routine, say, and perform it in the classroom. It's gonna take on a whole new meaning, and will very likely be totally inappropriate in that context.

Tell that to Parler, who just saw their entire platform banned and rejected because of what "private citizens" were saying on their website and because the administrators and moderators of Parler allowed it to remain on their website. When Amazon, etc, contacted the owners of Parler about the content they allowed unmoderated, they weren't posting images of what the famous people, the President, etc were saying. It was the commentary of the "private citizens" that was the issue. Stuff like this:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws

The reason they are now going offline and no one will touch them or allow them to use their web services, is because they allowed this kind of thing to remain on their website from "private citizens".. In other words, you don't get special privilege or protection to post stuff of this nature because you are a private citizen.

 

[Bells]

Tiassa

You made fun of Donald fucking Trump. In that sense, it occurs to wonder what you expected.

So this probably isn't the time to tell the one story about this guy I know who something, something, Burt Ward, went trumpfan on me twice, &c., and so on, ad nauseam, but it's a fun bit, and kind of lion and hedgerow Zen. I'll have to throw together a version, sometime.

More relevant to the moment, though, James R did invoke Poe's Law, and, honestly, go ahead and believe him on that count.

This ^^^

Is really not helpful.

You never remember.

Parmalee's offense was sufficient to require augmented points and duration, but apparently not important enough to remember. In its way, this point stands out.

I promise, the forgetfulness is not among your endearing traits.

Okay, there was the one time you forgot something I would rather forget, but never mind, since you've probably forgotten, again. Still, though, while it's true I don't like being called out for something, I almost can't imagine myself putting on that particular air. What would I have done that pissed someone off like that, and then forgotten? That's the part I have a hard time imagining. Oh, hey, I know, it's a particular insult, and I can think of maybe two specific people I would have smacked that way, and I've probably hit several people with a version of it, but it would be really hard to so blithely pretend to have no idea what someone was referring to.

Oh, right. Never mind. It also occurs, late in the writing, to observe that something goes here about reading the passage with the proper sniffing, leering, ¿what'd they dose him with? rambling cadence of a Trump campaign rally. It's funny, because my first advice to Parmalee would have been to just shrug and say something about a lack of subtlety.

Neither is this.

It happened what? 6 months ago?

A 20 point infraction was issued at the time (back in July last year) and if you or I had handed out that infraction, we'd probably be trying to figure out what was going on as well in a similar fashion.

To wit, this comment out of the blue, in a completely different thread on a completely different topic and subject matter:

Fascinating how Trump supporters always manage to get past the most heavily armed police forces in the history of the world. And it's ALWAYS the Trump supporters--BLM (for instance) wouldn't make it past the first step. Funny that.

Kinda makes one wonder.

Edit:

Whoops. Just to be safe, apparently I need to state that I explicitly advocate killing cops--James R will confirm this. Apparently, when I say that I "explicitly do NOT advocate" something, it "sounds like" I'm saying that I do, so, you know... Again, James can confirm this.

Was somehow connected....?

Not going to lie, with fresh eyes of mine, when I went back and tried to backtrack what the hell was going on, saw me going 'huh?' when I read that comment.

And we both know that if that was aimed at us, our response would probably have been along the same lines as James' was.

Quantum Quack:

perhaps if those secret service goons turn up you could suggest that to them... lol
The point being is that you have to take some responsibility for the possibility that various interpretations are to be reasonably expected.

This is not helpful and instead was aimed at flaming the issue.

pjdude:

given you well realized predilection for treating rightwing posters softer than left do you honestly believe you have a pot to piss in here?
again lets not forget you are ok with death threats james don't pretend you are not. you've shown since you don't like me its ok to threaten to kill me. what ever flaws tiassa has at least he has principles it a shame you only care about defending the worst posters here and attacking anyone who dares criticize you.

This is not helpful and instead was aimed at flaming the issue.

If you have an issue with how an issue was handled by moderation, please PM a moderator with links, etc and have it reviewed.

 

[pjdude1219]

pjdude:

This is not helpful and instead was aimed at flaming the issue.

don't really give a shit about helping the issue. james shouldn't be lying about what he is and is not ok with when he damn well knows he is lying his ass off.

If you have an issue with how an issue was handled by moderation, please PM a moderator with links, etc and have it reviewed.

and i did all that and nothing was done probably because the person responsible for reviewing was james. because james felt my life is ok to be threatened. im sorry you don't like him being called out on his petty bullshit but his differing standards and rules for different people is not ok.

 

[pjdude1219]

You shouldn't tell lies.

im not

Didn't your Mom teach you not to tell lies?

didn't yours

Be aware that if you keep telling lies, there might be consequences.

showing your true colors i see

If you want to hurl accusations, you'd better be ready with the evidence to support them. You're not bringing it, so far. You'll need to do much much better if this isn't just a drive-by shooting, and you intend to pursue this line.

Stop being a cry baby. You're supposed to be an adult. Grow up.

thats your response to anyone who dares criticize you personal attacks

Did you report the offending post?

yes, and i specifically asked why nothing was done about to tiassa afterwords?

Who was this person? Why don't you link the offending post?

someone who is no longer here.

Don't tell lies. Really, just stop.

im not. you just don't like the fact your being called on your lies. its from years ago but if you are that desperate for everyone to know you are a liar i can try and find it.

"I know that I do not miss the target more than 3% of the time.
I know that those who would abrogate my rights have no sense of morality.

I think that there are far too many immoral people out there

this is what was said

in response to this a mere comment of how the second amendment doesn't actually provide for an individual right to gun ownership. you've banned people for far less direct threats. i know it wasn't a big deal to you but i spent the rest of the day going over my internet history to make sure nothing i posted on here could let someone find me

 

[James R]

Moderator note: pjdude1219 has been warned for flaming another member.

Members are reminded that if they are going to accuse another member of telling lies, such accusations should be supported by appropriate evidence, at a minimum.

 

[Bells]

don't really give a shit about helping the issue. james shouldn't be lying about what he is and is not ok with when he damn well knows he is lying his ass off.

Personally, I have no idea what you are talking about.

and i did all that and nothing was done probably because the person responsible for reviewing was james. because james felt my life is ok to be threatened. im sorry you don't like him being called out on his petty bullshit but his differing standards and rules for different people is not ok.

I can't speak for my colleagues, but I for one do not know who you are talking about.

Who threatened you? Being vague about it is not helpful and this is completely off topic. You say it's from years ago.. And we are somehow supposed to know or remember?

its from years ago but if you are that desperate for everyone to know you are a liar i can try and find it.

Please do.

 

[Bells]

this is what was said

in response to this a mere comment of how the second amendment doesn't actually provide for an individual right to gun ownership. you've banned people for far less direct threats. i know it wasn't a big deal to you but i spent the rest of the day going over my internet history to make sure nothing i posted on here could let someone find me

Ah.

I went back and searched and that was the only one I found that you accused someone of threatening to kill you. But you had claimed that the person in question no longer posts here.

someone who is no longer here.

Sculptor does post here.

So perhaps you might understand our confusion.

So, let's go back to what you said was a threat on your life? From 2014...

You responded to iceaura:

a strict constructionist would have had a fit with the second amendment being reinterpted as a personal right. the second amendment isn't about self defense its about national security. you can tell this by the fact it mentions national security and not anything about personal self defense. the only reason we have the "right" to a gun is years of lobbying by the NRA and guillible people like you who bought their lies.

sculptor responds to you:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Your response to sculptor:

yes I've read the constitution and the bill of rights. there is no part of the constitution that gives the right of a gun. meaningless quoting the ninth shows that your learned to read. now think

sculptor then responds to you:

I know that I do not miss the target more than 3% of the time.
I know that those who would abrogate my rights have no sense of morality.

I think that there are far too many immoral people out there.

You respond and say that this was a threat:

you do know its against forums rules to threaten another member?

what right of yours am i trying abrogate? the magical right to a gun that the NRA made up and got right wing activist judges to to push?

Sculptor responds to your comment that this was deemed a threat:

Don't misunderstand.
People like doing what it is that they are good at, and get good at what it is that they like doing.
It is a simple pleasure that I enjoy a few times a year when I'm shopping for venison.
Eating wild game is healthier than eating feedlot beef, and a damned site more ecologically friendly.

Every skillset develops best at certain points in our physical and psychological development. I was raised in a single parent household, and back in the 50's, women were grossly underpaid, so, i grew up poor. So, i started putting meat on the table by hunting and trapping when I was 10 or 11 years old. By the time I was in my mid teens, I simply did not miss with a rifle or shotgun. A few years later, the M14 was a real treat. It seemed that all of the good shots had grown up hunting. So, denying hunting firearms to young people means we most likely end up with a generation whose military acumen is hinged on "spray and pray", which would most likely result in a lot more "collateral damage".

I'm an old man. It ain't just my rights I want to preserve, it's the rights of the next 1-2-3-etc generations.

Your response:

i didn't don't worry your threat came through wide and clear

yes the people who want gun control are goulish. as opposed to a upstanding idividual who would imply he would shoot at, and not miss, someone cause he didn't like their views

Sculptor responds:

Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
as/re




Is this part of your sense of humor?

Think about this.
If i ever actually wanted to bother with shooting anyone: What advantage would i gain by threatening them first?

I shoot for meat and I ain't a cannibal.

.............There are many millions of guns and gun owners and hunters in this country.
Why focus on the lunatic few?
Are these lunatic killers your secret heroes?
Are they living your fantasies?

You respond:

[ I'm glad you think its funny to shoot me but I don't find it funny. your fucking pyscho.

He then decides to ignore you by the looks of it..

Some 15 days and several posts later, you again try to get him to respond after he persistently ignores you:

how about my right not to threatened by a pyschopath with a gun?

Not going to lie, but I do not see the threat to your life in that series of posts.

I read before and days and maaaany pages after you say you were threatened, and I do not see it.

 

[pjdude1219]

fuck maybe i got more neurological issues than i thought i could have sworn it was a different person

 

[Bells]

fuck maybe i got more neurological issues than i thought i could have sworn it was a different person

That's okay.

We all get things wrong sometimes.

So we should all just bring things down a bit.

 

[James R]

Are you going to apologise to me now, pjdude?

 

[sculptor]

Bells
Thanks for the above.
Curiously, the thing that stood out for me was

your fucking pyscho.

"your" is a possessive pronoun
For the record:
To the best of my knowledge, I do not actually have a "fucking psycho"
Nor do I want one.

 

[billvon]

Setting aside, for the moment, the matter of what is or is not perceived as "incitement," I'm honestly not so sure about this. As pj observes above, there does seem to be a curious level of tolerance shown for baseless rightwing "alternative facts," at times.

There's an important difference there.

I moderate another forum (a skydiving forum.) And we make it very clear that it's OK to attack politicians, political parties, ideas, people outside the forum etc. But you can't personally attack anyone posting on the forum. So:

"Trump sucks" - that's fine to post
"Republicans suck" - also fine
"Democrats support murder and pedophilia" - also fine
"Exchemist sucks" - not OK

Of course people try to get clever.

Exchemist: "I like rabbits"
Troll: "Anyone who likes rabbits and posts here sucks" - also not OK.

(Sorry to use you as an example Exchemist)

 

[exchemist]

There's an important difference there.

I moderate another forum (a skydiving forum.) And we make it very clear that it's OK to attack politicians, political parties, ideas, people outside the forum etc. But you can't personally attack anyone posting on the forum. So:

"Trump sucks" - that's fine to post
"Republicans suck" - also fine
"Democrats support murder and pedophilia" - also fine
"Exchemist sucks" - not OK

Of course people try to get clever.

Exchemist: "I like rabbits"
Troll: "Anyone who likes rabbits and posts here sucks" - also not OK.

(Sorry to use you as an example Exchemist)

But I do like rabbits - in a stew with bacon, Dijon mustard and tarragon.

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyone who skydives sucks.

 

[sculptor]

Anyone who skydives sucks.

I went sky diving once
It took a lot of time and effort to get a minute of free fall
I only suck when i set my regulator low for scuba diving---I found that if i set the regulator high so i didn't have to suck, it was a lot more fun and relaxing, but the air didn't last as long.

 

[DaveC426913]

I went sky diving once
It took a lot of time and effort to get a minute of free fall
I only suck when i set my regulator low for scuba diving---I found that if i set the regulator high so i didn't have to suck, it was a lot more fun and relaxing, but the air didn't last as long.

I was just pokin' fun at billvon.

I once had to end a drift dive in the Niagara river (above the falls) because my buddy ran out of air while I still had 2/3rds of a tank left.