Removal of Tiassa as moderator

[exchemist]

Who the hell cares? I mean, really?

One might have thought that those who claim to care so deeply about the moderation of this once vibrant forum would be more concerned to awaken it from its recent state of hibernation

Hello stranger. Getting bored over the Christmas break?

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Why are you so interested in what some might regard as a private spat between myself and Tiassa, which should never have been in the public forums on sciforums in the first place?

Why are you desperate to inject yourself into this?

It's a puzzle, all right.

Post #57 is a post by you that links back to a previous thread, post #3 of which is you summarising the accusations you think he has already made. There is nothing in post #1 or #2 of that thread that accuses you of those 3 things...

You're factually incorrect. Unaware of what went before and unable to read between the lines. Unable even to understand what the words that Tiassa wrote mean, if we are to take you at face value.

And, if you had any reason to doubt what Tiassa meant there, surely the six month time period in which Tiassa doubled down on his accusations and refused to clarify or retract ought to tell you something. But, you missed that, didn't you? Maybe it isn't important to you?

....so I'm left to wonder where the original accusations are...

How far back do you want to go to find the "originals"?

If you're so worried about whether Tiassa did or did not make those accusations, why don't you check for yourself? Knock yourself out. Or, you could - like - try asking him.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying he hasn't accused you, nor that he has.

Of course you aren't. After all, why would you even be interested in such matters?

 

[James R]

One might have thought that those who claim to care so deeply about the moderation of this once vibrant forum would be more concerned to awaken it from its recent state of hibernation

Sarkus has other priorities.

 

[Sarkus]

Why are you so interested in what some might regard as a private spat between myself and Tiassa, which should never have been in the public forums on sciforums in the first place?

Intellectual curiosity, James R. You made it public, so you seem to want us to see it as important, and to take an interest. I'm taking an interest.

Why are you desperate to inject yourself into this?

I'm not taking sides, so I'm not injecting myself anywhere other than where you want us to go: taking an interest in what you presumably think is an important matter. I would like to understand why you claim he has accused you of the things you claim he has. I mean, you've acted as plaintiff, judge, jury, and executioner, and played it out in front of the audience as you wanted. And now you find it surprising that people (okay, maybe just me) are finding the case interesting?

It's a puzzle, all right.

It's really not.

You're factually incorrect. Unaware of what went before and unable to read between the lines. Unable even to understand what the words that Tiassa wrote mean, if we are to take you at face value.

Then spell out your case, James R.
As it is, I do not seem to be factually incorrect. Let's see what I said: "Post #57 is a post by you that links back to a previous thread, post #3 of which is you summarising the accusations you think he has already made." Are these things not factually correct?
Then I said "There is nothing in post #1 or #2 of that thread that accuses you of those 3 things...". Well, he did reference (post #1 of that thread) your "defense of white supremacism", which is not the same as advocating for it (reminding me of that famous quote "I disapprove of what you say - but will defend your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall). I will assume that you recognise the difference.
There is then reference to how you address racism in this site but, again, that is somewhat different than saying that you "advocate for" it.
And then there's a whole swathe about the standard you tried to set with regard conflict of, or vested, interest in a subject.
So, where in this post of Tiassa's are the accusations, exactly, given that you said I was factually incorrect that there weren't any? I mean, I assume actual facts are important to you, right? Or is this some version of Trump's "alternate facts" that we need to be mindful of?

And, if you had any reason to doubt what Tiassa meant there, surely the six month time period in which Tiassa doubled down on his accusations and refused to clarify or retract ought to tell you something.

He doubled down? Okay, then please highlight to us all where he has accused you of the things you think he has accused you of? It shouldn't be difficult, should it, given he not only accused you initially but then doubled down on them?
Again, I'm asking out of intellectual curiosity. And since you have accused, found guilty, and executed, I'd like to be satisfied that it is based on more than just emotion, or on a misunderstanding, on your part, that the person is actually, you know, guilty.

but, you missed that, didn't you? Maybe it isn't important to you?

I certainly haven't read everything that has transpired between you. But I'm guessing that you have, so you should have all the details, right, so you should be able to point them out to us.

How far back do you want to go to find the "originals"?

It doesn't need to be the "originals". You have said that he has "doubled-down" so even just those would be a starting point.

If you're so worried about whether Tiassa did or did not make those accusations, why don't you check for yourself? Knock yourself out. Or, you could - like - try asking him.

I have been checking for myself. And I have asked him. And still I can not find where he has actually accused you of those things. He has certainly questioned your consistency, your approach to moderation, but, nope, I still can't find those accusations. Hence I'm hoping that you, the one who has claimed he has accused you, and whom you (despite obvious conflict of interest) have found guilty and executed for it, will be able to point us in the right direction.
Intellectual curiosity, you see.

Of course you aren't. After all, why would you even be interested in such matters?

No, I'm not saying he has or hasn't. I haven't found anything that suggests that he has, but then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc. Which I'm sure you are just as mindful of. And I'm interested because, well, you've made it such a public matter, you seem to want us to care about it, and it is honestly now intellectually interesting to me. And what is this site for if not the intellectually curious, right?

My guess will be that, instead of actually doing the decent thing and showing us where you think you have been accused of those things, supporting your own accusations with facts, you'll close this thread and so avoid all those questions that you'd otherwise have difficulty answering.
But we'll see.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

You made it public, so you seem to want us to see it as important, and to take an interest.

You are in error again. I did not choose to make Tiassa's accusations public. He chose to do that.

I'm not taking sides, so I'm not injecting myself anywhere other than where you want us to go: taking an interest in what you presumably think is an important matter.

I don't think you get it, to tell the truth. I think your interests lie elsewhere.

But yes, being falsely accused of being a white supremacist, a racist and a sex crimes advocate is an important matter. Perhaps you would be able to recognise that if you were the one who was accused of such things.

I would like to understand why you claim he has accused you of the things you claim he has.

Start with post #57 and track back from there, as I previously suggested. Do some research if you're not satisfied.

I mean, you've acted as plaintiff, judge, jury, and executioner, and played it out in front of the audience as you wanted. And now you find it surprising that people (okay, maybe just me) are finding the case interesting?
It's really not.

Try to be consistent. Is it interesting, or not? You just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences.

Then spell out your case, James R.

See post #1 of this thread. I was quite clear.

As it is, I do not seem to be factually incorrect.

Like I said, you are unaware of what went before and apparently unable to read between the lines. And still unable even to understand what the words that Tiassa wrote mean, apparently.

Then I said "There is nothing in post #1 or #2 of that thread that accuses you of those 3 things...".

That is factually incorrect, as I pointed out.

Besides, if he did not mean to accuse me of those things, it would have been a very simple matter for him to clarify matters. The fact that he did not deny that he meant to make those accusations, for six months, despite the matter coming up several times in the interim, ought to tell you something. But, apparently, you don't get it.

Well, he did reference (post #1 of that thread) your "defense of white supremacism", which is not the same as advocating for it...

Nowhere have I defended white supremacism. Nor have I ever advocated for it. Those are lies and Tiassa is fully aware that they are lies, knowingly told by him.

Here's a direct quote from Tiassa:

".... please note that I did not simply observe that you were still spruiking for white supremacism and leave it at that."
​

In case you're in doubt, in this quote Tiassa is asserting that I was/am "spruiking for white supremacism". That would be advocating for it, Sarkus. See if you can pointlessly attempt to split any more hairs.

There is then reference to how you address racism in this site but, again, that is somewhat different than saying that you "advocate for" it.

Tiassa wrote this, in a thread I linked you to but which you obviously didn't read:

"The excuses you make for white supremacism happen to coincide with your whiteness; and sure, I'll call it racist, but to hold that whiteness as a disqualifier in and of itself, per vested interest, damages such discussions."
​

Let me try to explain what this means, Sarkus, since you don't seem to get it.

Tiassa claimed that I make excuses for white supremacism. That is a lie. He goes on to suggest that I make excuses for white supremacism because I'm white and I'm racist.

His meaning is quite clear to everybody but you, I think. What exactly is your problem? What don't you understand?

And then there's a whole swathe about the standard you tried to set with regard conflict of, or vested, interest in a subject.

This is the real reason you're posting at all about this. Tiassa chose to make these particular accusations at a time when he thought I was at a low point because I was already engaged in a vigorous attempt to educate you about the moral ins and outs of when it is appropriate to declare one's vested interests. You were all riled up and angry at that time and you were no doubt happy to accept Tiassa as an ally against evil old me. You weren't - and you aren't - interested in whether Tiassa was saying anything true or accurate about me. All you wanted was somebody to join in your attack on me. And here we are - seven months later, and you still haven't got over that little fight you decided to pick with me.

I mean, I assume actual facts are important to you, right?

Yes, the facts are important to me, but not to you. You keep telling us all that.

Of course, when it comes to facts that relate to you, it's a different story, isn't it? Those facts are very important to you. When it's other people? Not so much.

He doubled down? Okay, then please highlight to us all where he has accused you of the things you think he has accused you of?

No. If you're as interested as you say you are, you will be highly motivated to do your own homework, I'm sure. I have pointed you towards one unambiguous instance of the relevant false accusations already. That ought to be enough.

And since you have accused, found guilty, and executed, I'd like to be satisfied that it is based on more than just emotion, or on a misunderstanding, on your part, that the person is actually, you know, guilty.

I don't care whether you're satisfied. You don't even seem to understand why making such false accusations is unacceptable, inappropriate and highly offensive.

I have been checking for myself. And I have asked him.

What was his response when you asked him? Did he deny that he made the accusations? Did he tell you it was all a terrible mistake on his part, and that he deeply regrets causing offence and failing to retract the accusations?

He has communicated nothing of the sort to me, and I'm the one he accused. He had more than 6 months to make amends and he chose not to. On the contrary, he posted more lies about me during that time, on numerous occasions.

But you're not sure he made any accusations at all, or whether he told any lies about me. You're interested, but not interested enough to care about the truth or, apparently, to put any effort into reading anything that might reveal the truth, even when it is served up on a platter to you.

And still I can not find where he has actually accused you of those things.

I think we just have to accept that you're just not very good at reading comprehension, then. Or too lazy. Or motivated not to look too hard. Maybe a combination of all three.

Hence I'm hoping that you, the one who has claimed he has accused you, and whom you (despite obvious conflict of interest) have found guilty and executed for it, will be able to point us in the right direction.

I tried, Sarkus. For whatever reason, it didn't take, with you.

And I'm interested because, well, you've made it such a public matter, you seem to want us to care about it, and it is honestly now intellectually interesting to me. And what is this site for if not the intellectually curious, right?

You don't seem to get it, Sarkus. Should you not be more than intellectually curious about aggregious false accusations? No? (Next you'll be telling me that you need me to explain to you why you should should be concerned about false accusations involving people other than yourself.)

Moreover, it is right that the removal of a moderator on a forum like this should be a matter of public record. I'm confident that you don't care about who is or isn't a moderator here, except insofar as it directly impacts your own activities here. But other members get why it is important.

My guess will be that, instead of actually doing the decent thing and showing us where you think you have been accused of those things, supporting your own accusations with facts, you'll close this thread and so avoid all those questions that you'd otherwise have difficulty answering.

You guessed wrong. Besides, I already showed you. It didn't take.

 

[Seattle]

James, it's interesting that you keep asking "why are you so interested in this" whenever anyone engages with you. It's like you are surprised that this isn't a private conversation or that you are surprised that there is any pushback to your post.

You find it odd that Sarkus is "upset" about something from 7 months ago but you are up upset with Tiassa from years ago.

You can't let some name calling go but you do the same name calling. You and Tiassa have accused me of white supremacism but your answer to that, as the judge and jury, would be to say "well, because it's true in your case". It's not true in my case and I'm sure it isn't true in your case either but since the only standard for you is your own opinion, then Tiassa's opinion is just as valid in that regard.

 

[Sarkus]

You are in error again. I did not choose to make Tiassa's accusations public. He chose to do that.

While Tiassa's "accusations" were in the public forum, it was you who dragged everyone's attention to them. Repeatedly.

Start with post #57 and track back from there, as I previously suggested. Do some research if you're not satisfied.

I did. Couldn't find anything. Maybe you can help narrow down the search, or, you know, actually point out the accusations?

Try to be consistent. Is it interesting, or not? You just contradicted yourself in consecutive sentences.

I am consistent, James R. Or are you thinking me saying "It's really not" was in reference to it being interesting, rather than to what you wrote (i.e. you thinking it being a puzzle - which it isn't). So, where is the contradiction, or are you happy to throw around false accusations as well?

See post #1 of this thread. I was quite clear.

You've made your case for stripping him of moderator duties, sure, but they include the supposed accusations he made. I'm asking you to please provide evidence that he has made these accusations. You simply asserting them is not sufficient in that regard, I'm sure you appreciate.

Like I said, you are unaware of what went before and apparently unable to read between the lines. And still unable even to understand what the words that Tiassa wrote mean, apparently.

Clearly.

Besides, if he did not mean to accuse me of those things, it would have been a very simple matter for him to clarify matters. The fact that he did not deny that he meant to make those accusations, for six months, despite the matter coming up several times in the interim, ought to tell you something. But, apparently, you don't get it.

That would be for Tiassa to explain, if he didn't make those accusations. I'm just asking you to support your accusation that he did. I mean, maybe we can all accuse people and, well, if they don't deny them within, what, 6 months, then we just accept they're true?

Here's a direct quote from Tiassa:

".... please note that I did not simply observe that you were still spruiking for white supremacism and leave it at that."
​

In case you're in doubt, in this quote Tiassa is asserting that I was/am "spruiking for white supremacism". That would be advocating for it, Sarkus. See if you can pointlessly attempt to split any more hairs.

"Spruik" is not a word I am familiar with, beyond meaning simply to make a public speech about. If it means "advocating" then sure, okay. That's one. Thank you. How hard was that, really?

Tiassa wrote this, in a thread I linked you to but which you obviously didn't read:

"The excuses you make for white supremacism happen to coincide with your whiteness; and sure, I'll call it racist, but to hold that whiteness as a disqualifier in and of itself, per vested interest, damages such discussions."
​

Let me try to explain what this means, Sarkus, since you don't seem to get it.

That's rather disingenuous, James R. First you state that I "obviously didn't read" something, and then claim that I "don't seem to get" what you think I haven't read. Which is it? And there was you asking me to be consistent.
So, that's two.
Where's the third, that you advocate for sex crimes? In that post I did note that you responded to Tiassa's "it is unclear what part of Sarkus' posts would be so particular as your standard demands for advocacy of sex crime" with "I have never advocated for sex crimes." but then Tiassa's comment never accused you of doing so, rather just comparing the standard one has set for something to previously be considered as advocacy of sex crimes with the standard you set in the dispute with me about advocating for crypto. No actual accusation as far as I can see.

His meaning is quite clear to everybody but you, I think. What exactly is your problem? What don't you understand?

The meaning is clear, now that you have highlighted where he has accused you. Thanks for doing so, well, on 2 of the 3. If you could do the 3rd as well, that would be great.

This is the real reason you're posting at all about this.

It really isn't, but thanks for guessing. Want to have another go? Hint: I've already stated it.

Yes, the facts are important to me, but not to you. You keep telling us all that.

Where do I "keep telling" people that facts are not important? Is that yet another false accusation you're throwing around? Please support it, or apologise.

Of course, when it comes to facts that relate to you, it's a different story, isn't it? Those facts are very important to you. When it's other people? Not so much.

Again, please state where I have said that facts are not important? I look forward to you pointing out the repeated occurrences.

No. If you're as interested as you say you are, you will be highly motivated to do your own homework, I'm sure.

I am. And you have finally highlighted 2 instances. Thank you. It really wasn't all that hard, was it?

I have pointed you towards one unambiguous instance of the relevant false accusations already. That ought to be enough.

It's a start

I don't care whether you're satisfied. You don't even seem to understand why making such false accusations is unacceptable, inappropriate and highly offensive.

No, I do understand, if those accusations are false. I've simply been trying to establish, in the first instance, whether those accusations have even been made.

What was his response when you asked him? Did he deny that he made the accusations? Did he tell you it was all a terrible mistake on his part, and that he deeply regrets causing offence and failing to retract the accusations?

It was via PM which I will keep between the Tiassa and myself. The clue is in the P of the PM, James R.

But you're not sure he made any accusations at all...

I wasn't, no. But you have indicated accusations covering 2 of the 3 you think he has made.

or whether he told any lies about me.

I haven't examined his explanations in detail, much of which may even be in the private section of the moderator forum.

You're interested, but not interested enough to care about the truth or, apparently, to put any effort into reading anything that might reveal the truth, even when it is served up on a platter to you.

All untrue, I'm afraid. I am interested, hence my line of inquiry. You have now been gracious enough to point out specific examples of accusations of 2 of the 3. I am interested sufficiently from an intellectual point of view to continue to examine the "evidence", so to speak, to establish the rest. I'll be sure to come back should I have any further queries later on, though.

I tried, Sarkus. For whatever reason, it didn't take, with you.

Throwing threads at people when they asked you for the specific accusations wasn't helpful on your part. You have, finally, had the wherewithall to provide specific examples of 2 of the 3. I look forward to examples of the 3rd.

You don't seem to get it, Sarkus. Should you not be more than intellectually curious about aggregious false accusations? No? (Next you'll be telling me that you need me to explain to you why you should should be concerned about false accusations involving people other than yourself.)

I don't accept the premise that I should be concerned, no. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. In this instance, in the spat between you and Tiassa, I am not concerned in the slightest, irrespective of accuracy or otherwise of the accusations. You're a big boy, James R. You wield the power around here. You're not defenseless. You tell me why I should be concerned, please.

Moreover, it is right that the removal of a moderator on a forum like this should be a matter of public record. I'm confident that you don't care about who is or isn't a moderator here, except insofar as it directly impacts your own activities here. But other members get why it is important.

Thank you for the pointless straw man. Do you feel better after taking swings at fictitious positions you set up for yourself?

 

[DaveC426913]

While Tiassa's "accusations" were in the public forum, it was you who dragged everyone's attention to them. Repeatedly.

This is kind of weird.

I'm imagining us sitting at a conference table with James R and Tiassa at the head of the table. As talks proceed, every few minutes, Tiassa leans over and jabs James in the kidney with a pencil (for whatever reason). James clearly ignores this the first half dozen times it happens.

Eventually, it is obvious to all that Tiassa will not stop, and James turns to the rest of the table and says "Tiassa is continually stabbing me in the kidney with a pencil. This makes it very difficult to continue. It is apparent we will have to address this before we can continue. And I guess Tiassa insists we do so right here at the table in front of everyone."

And then Sarkus pipes up, saying "James, you keep bringing up this issue of Tiassa stabbing you in the kidney with a pencil. We all see him doing this, but you keep bringing it up. Repeatedly. "

"Also, could you, James, explain to us why Tiassa keeps jabbing you in the kidney with a pencil? (I certainly wouldn't dream of asking the guy doing the jabbing to explain himself.)"

 

[Pinball1970]

Oh god. Tiassa implied I was an anti Semite then questioned my "Reliability," as a poster? Scientist? Tech? Human?

It is fine. Perhaps I can convince him otherwise?

I think we can move on. Just my take.

 

[Seattle]

I'm picturing a junior high school where one person has been appointed as the hall monitor and keeps "reporting" everyone for every little infraction. Eventually this hall monitor gets his butt kicked enough times (or grows up) that he quits engaging in this behavior, fits in, and learns to get along with the rest of the class.

 

[Sarkus]

This is kind of weird.

Not really. They're grown adults, metaphorically speaking within the assigned characters of this forum at least, with the capability of dealing with and resolving the issue in private. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.

I see it more like the CEO having issues with the CFO, and deliberately choosing to wait until he can voice his concerns in public to everyone so as to maximise the effect of his call-out. Most people, myself included, ultimately couldn't give a shit about the issues they have between themselves, some of which seems to have been voiced in their private sanctum, but every so often spills out. The jabbing, gentle or otherwise, has been going on for a number of years, and not just one way. It's part of the furniture by now. We're all used to it. Not just from the CEO or CFO but from everyone else to everyone else. It's part of the fabric of this "company", due in part to the way the CEO has opted to run this place. Furthermore, the CEO is not immune to the criticisms he has made of the CFO. That much is supported by fact.
So, yeah, seeing the CEO suddenly turn round and make the spat between them public - i.e. stand up in a meeting and make the accusations... yeah, that's different. And what's actually different? Other than it being the CEO who is on the receiving end this time, rather than giving it out? You tell me.

Further, I am not asking James R to explain why Tiassa is jabbing him in the kidneys. That is for Tiassa to explain and justify, which I am thinking that he thinks he has done many times over. James R has to at least explain why he has stopped the meeting this time and accused Tiassa so publicly of poking him in the kidneys when it could, and should, have been dealt with between the two of them in private, given that he (James R) had the power to do what he wanted as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner. And, for those not aware of the continual jabbing, the accusations of such need justifying. I, for one, saw no kidney-jabbing that was not part and parcel of what goes on at sciforums, from the CEO down. Maybe I fell asleep during the boring meetings. Maybe I really just couldn't give a shit about it. Whatever. He, James R, made the whole spat between them as public and as disruptive as it has been. The difference: the obvious one being that he was the subject of the accusations. You tell me what other differences there have been between now and the past 10+ years here.

Me, as an observer, who couldn't do diddly-squat about the issues between them even if I had wanted to (you can't ignore a moderator!), didn't therefore give a shit about their spat, even as soon as I was made aware of it. At all. I deal with people as I see them, not as others do. If I'm not being accused then their spat, their accusations, are as irrelevant to me as any other personal issue any other member may have with any other member. Me, as such an observer, would have preferred they kept it behind closed doors, and resolved it behind closed doors, whatever the outcome. Honestly, I couldn't have given a shit about it. Have I made that obvious by now? I'm fairly sure that most other members (at least those who aren't directly involved) also couldn't give a shit about their spat. They could all give a shit about what people accuse them of, of couse, but that's different. But spats between other members? No. This site really isn't that important to people. Well, not to most of us, I'm sure. If Bells accused Seattle, or Seattle accused DaveC, or DaveC accused Wegs, or Wegs accused Write4U etc... I honestly really could not give a shit, especially when the justification has been running over 10+ years. Nor could anyone else not directly accusing or accused. This is the way of things. Tell me I'm wrong, that anyone here really gives a shit about this issue. Sure, I've made it a focus of intellectual examination, but that was after not giving a shit, and, frankly, James R telling me that I should be giving a shit. Which I still don't. So I want to at least understand from an intellectual point whether the accusations have been made, and if so are supported etc.

In summary, the CEO, to continue the analogy, made such a meal out of it in this instance, highlighted it to everyone they possibly could, analogous to leaking it to the papers that the CFO had stabbed them in the kidneys such that any other reader would accept it as a fait accomplis, that it piqued my intellectual interest to see what the spat was all about and whether the supposed accusations held any water. Hence the inquiries to date.
Consider me a journalist after-the-fact looking for the detail.

So, no, not weird at all.
Just a matter of perspective.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm picturing a junior high school where one person has been appointed as the hall monitor and keeps "reporting" everyone for every little infraction. Eventually this hall monitor gets his butt kicked enough times (or grows up) that he quits engaging in this behavior, fits in, and learns to get along with the rest of the class.

Unfortunately the hall monitor in your imagination is someone who can't help but do what he reports everyone else for. Even as someone who tries to "fit in" he continues to fail to do as he preaches, and gets upset when criticised for doing so.
But, yeah, in as much as someone from my land can picture such a stereotypical US high-school, it seems, well, retro.

 

[Sarkus]

Oh god. Tiassa implied I was an anti Semite then questioned my "Reliability," as a poster? Scientist? Tech? Human?

Born in 1970 (assumed from your moniker)? That would be sufficient to question your "reliability", wouldn't it? I mean, how many times do you have to get up in the night!

I think we can move on. Just my take.

We can, at least emotionally. Personally I am genuinely interested in disecting the case-study. But I appreciate that's not to everyone's taste. And it may be expecting too much from those who feel they've been hurt by the experience to offer a fair and impartial view of things. But I've never been one for subtlety.

 

[James R]

Seattle:

James, it's interesting that you keep asking "why are you so interested in this" whenever anyone engages with you.

You're reading very selectively, it seems. I don't do that "whenever anyone engages" with me.

I ask Sarkus, because he has continually insisted that he has little to no interest in the particular matters that are the subject of this thread. And yet, paradoxically, he is one of the people with the highest post counts in this thread. His actions belie his pleas that he is uninterested.

It's a puzzle, alright.

Either that, or he's not being entirely honest.

It's like you are surprised that this isn't a private conversation or that you are surprised that there is any pushback to your post.

I'm not at all surprised by any of this. The usual suspects have all chimed in, saying the usual sorts of things, as expected - yourself included.

You find it odd that Sarkus is "upset" about something from 7 months ago but you are up upset with Tiassa from years ago.

No, I don't find it odd that Sarkus is still carrying an old grudge from 7 months ago. I find it a little odd that he continually insists that he isn't, when it must be obvious to everybody else that he is.

Clearly, you haven't followed this thread. If you had, you would be aware that Tiassa's accusations did not happen years ago. At least, not the ones I mentioned in post #1.

And yes, it is upsetting to have false accusations levelled against you, based on blatant lies. Perhaps if that ever happens to you, you will understand.

You can't let some name calling go but you do the same name calling.

Can you appreciate that this goes beyond name calling? Pay attention.

You and Tiassa have accused me of white supremacism but your answer to that, as the judge and jury, would be to say "well, because it's true in your case".

Ah. Is this why you're posting here, now? Like Sarkus, you want to reprosecute an old grudge?

I suggest you start a new thread if you want to assert that I have falsely accused you of white supremacism. Please be sure to bring your evidence. And no cherry-picking from threads where matters were previous discussed with you in excrutiating detail. Try to have a point other than a mere desire to attack and prosecute a grudge. Try to come in with a positive, productive goal in mind. Think about what outcome you want, and the best and fairest and most honest way to work towards that. Be clear in stating what you want.

It's not true in my case and I'm sure it isn't true in your case either ...

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it.

Maybe you can help me to explain things to Sarkus, who is a bit slow on the uptake.

...but since the only standard for you is your own opinion, then Tiassa's opinion is just as valid in that regard.

I'm confused. Is it your claim that there is no objective measure of whether somebody is a white supremacist? There are only opinions, and all opinions are equally valid?

I fear you might be on a slippery slope into moral relativism, there.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Let's take stock of where you're at, now.

I provided you with a couple of quotes from Tiassa, both of which appear in post #1 of the thread I linked back in post #57 of this thread. At that time, clearly you didn't read even the first post of that thread. In fact, you missed two opportunities to read it. The first opportunity was at the time it was first posted. You participated in that thread. Of course, being as self-focussed as you are, you only focussed on your own gripes and issues at that time, while Tiassa's lies and accusations just flew right over your head, without you even noticing.

The second opportunity you had was to carefully read the material after you expressed your doubts about whether Tiassa even made any accusations against me. I gave you the link, reminding you of a thread in which you were a prominent participant. But, even now, you haven't read through it carefully. I had to explicitly extract 2 quotes from that opening post of Tiassa's, which you now grudgingly admit were accusations of my advocating white supremacist and accusations that I am racist. You still can't find the third accusation, apparently, even though it's right there in the same post.

We also find out that you read the word "spruik" and didn't understand it, but apparently you didn't look it up until just now. You just skipped over it, assuming it was unimportant, and continued to doubt whether Tiassa actually made his accusations or not. In fact, you're still in doubt about one of the three, apparently. How slow can you be? How long will it take you to catch up with the rest of us?

First you state that I "obviously didn't read" something, and then claim that I "don't seem to get" what you think I haven't read. Which is it?

It's both.

Firstly, you obviously didn't read even the first post of the thread I linked to, where all three accusations appear.

Secondly, none this means anything to you. For you, this matter of Tiassa's accusation is all about an intellectual investigation into whether I've told you lies. You don't understand why Tiassa's accusations are serious, or hurtful, or problematic, except on some kind of abstract intellectual level. You can't empathise. You try to justify that by claiming that it just doesn't interest you. And yet, here you are, stringing the conversation out in post after pointless post about how you just can't seem to find the "facts" of the matter, no matter how hard you look. At some level, you appreciate that I'm upset about something. What that might be - who knows? It's irrational. I'm over-reacting. It all might never have actually happened at all, as far as you can tell. At best, it's like you're watching two abstract pawns on a chessboard, making moves you can't quite understand. You're aware that there are rules of some kind, but you're not sure what they are. You can't see why anybody would want to make such a big fuss over something so unimportant.

You're completely out of your depth, Sarkus. I don't think it's your fault. On the contrary, I suspect it is something you are powerless to change. But, at some intellectual level, surely you must have some inkling that you might be missing something relevant - perhaps important? Maybe that's why you continue to butt you head into this so clumsily.

At the same time, you're sending out a lot of confused, mixed messages. On the one hand, you continually claim that this entire matter is unimportant to you, but in the next sentence you claim that it's important that I show you exactly where you can find all the "facts". On the one hand, you claim that you understand why accusations of the type that Tiassa made are serious, but on the other hand, you can't seem to explain why they are serious, or why you anybody should care about them. In fact, you claim that nobody should care about them, apart from myself and Tiassa, and you assert proudly that you certainly don't care about anything so trivial. All this while you demonstrate your lack of interest and care by continually dedicating yourself to questioning the basic facts of the matter, over and over again. It doesn't make a lot of sense, Sarkus. But, like you said, you'll be back with further queries for me, later on.

Look:

I don't accept the premise that I should be concerned, no. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. In this instance, in the spat between you and Tiassa, I am not concerned in the slightest, irrespective of accuracy or otherwise of the accusations.

You don't accept the premise that you should be concerned about somebody making false accusations of white supremacy, racism and sex crimes advocacy against somebody else, in a forum community where you are an active member and participant.

Sometimes you are concerned; sometimes you're not. Sometimes you're concerned about whether there are any facts to be found. Sometimes you're not concerned about how people feel about things, or what the moral implications of a person's actions might be.

In this instance, you're not concerned in the slightest about any of it. You're not concerned if any accusations were ever made. Bizarrely, you're even less concerned about whether the accusations are true, whether they were made or not. You tried to find a fuck to give, but you just couldn't find one. Right?

Any yet, here you are - post after pointless post - pushing your barrow of demanding "the facts". For what? Who knows? Because none of it is important to you, or so you say.

With all of that taken as a given, then, tell me why you do continue to post in this thread, ostensibly on this topic that is so trivially unimportant to you?

Do you imagine that you're cleverly catching me out in lies or errors? Is that your aim? If I can't provide you with the "facts" you demand, that's a win for you? Score one point for Sarkus in his private battle against James R, because Sarkus was right all along about not having to declare his vested interest in a six-month old thread? Is that the sort of thing that is important to you, Sarkus?

You're a big boy, James R. You wield the power around here. You're not defenseless.

Do you like trying to take the big boys down a notch or two, Sarkus? Is that all this is about, for you? Do you feel like you're winning yet? Or do you feel unconcerned, either way? After all, it's only the facts that are important. Right?

You tell me why I should be concerned, please.

It's not something I can teach you, Sarkus. It's a capacity you either have or lack. Apparently, you lack it. There is no blame. Like I said, it is very probably quite outside your ability to control or remedy.

It does, however, make these kinds of interactions with you pointless, repetitive and frightfully dull. But you can't stop yourself. You don't get why you should stop.

 

[Seattle]

I'm confused. Is it your claim that there is no objective measure of whether somebody is a white supremacist? There are only opinions, and all opinions are equally valid?

I fear you might be on a slippery slope into moral relativism, there.

No, I just have experience here. I've never said anything that would imply white supremacism and yet I've been accused of it. Maybe that was primarily by Tiassa, I can't remember but I do believe you played the racist card and in most cases that requires a lot of assumptions, which is a subjective thing.

I might play around a bit with (they baby mama language) so to go from that to "racist" or "white supremist" requires reading a lot into what I said. Claiming moral relativism on my part is just misdirection.

I have also responded to a thread that you started, in the past, with my opinion and you pulled the "why are you so focused on this" kind of reply. You imply that if someone responds to your question in a way that you disagree with that they must be "so focused" rather than just that they are answering a question that you asked. It's a method of deflection on your part as is looking for some ulterior reason for their reply instead of just addressing it at face value.

 

[billvon]

Perhaps we could split the James/Sarkus argument into its own thread? Getting hard to trace the drama through the various subthreads here.

 

[wegs]

Maybe everyone should call a truce as a NY’s resolution since we’re ever so close to 2024?

 

[James R]

Seattle:

No, I just have experience here. I've never said anything that would imply white supremacism and yet I've been accused of it.

That doesn't seem relevant in this thread. Why do you bring it up here?

Maybe that was primarily by Tiassa, I can't remember but I do believe you played the racist card and in most cases that requires a lot of assumptions, which is a subjective thing.

It can be based on assumptions unconnected with evidence, sure. Or it can be based on things a person actually writes or says or does. Making accusations without evidence is generally bad.

I might play around a bit with (they baby mama language) so to go from that to "racist" or "white supremist" requires reading a lot into what I said.

Maybe.

You might have noticed that Tiassa likes to play up statements made by a lot of people and try to dress them up as evidence of racism, white supremacism and so on and so forth. He likes calling names. In a few instances, no dressing up is needed, of course. Obviously, some people really are white supremacists and racists, but there are far fewer of those people here than Tiassa would have us all believe.

I have also responded to a thread that you started, in the past, with my opinion and you pulled the "why are you so focused on this" kind of reply. You imply that if someone responds to your question in a way that you disagree with that they must be "so focused" rather than just that they are answering a question that you asked. It's a method of deflection on your part as is looking for some ulterior reason for their reply instead of just addressing it at face value.

In my experience, a few individuals on this forum tend to get fixated on things that, mostly, don't concern them. Either that, or they find it really difficult to let a disagreement lie. They want to keep coming back to it, to fight the same old battle over and over again, long after both sides fully understand the other side's position and their unwillingness to shift away from it towards their opponent's. It's a particular kind of bullheadedness I only really encounter on internet discussion boards like this one, and in some social media forums. Some people just can't stop themselves. Everything requires a reaction from them - usually an angry or outraged one.

 

[James R]

Maybe everyone should call a truce as a NY’s resolution since we’re ever so close to 2024?

That's a worthy wish. Unlikely to happen with this current crowd, unfortunately.

Best wishes to you and yours for a bright and happy 2024, wegs.