How? Sarkus wants to know why Tiassa is jabbing James in the kidney. Why doesn't he ask the guy doing the poking why he is doing it?
I'd say Sarkus is demonstrating who he thinks is the one that can be rationally engaged with and who he thinks cannot. Feel free to disabuse me of this notion.
I don't think Sarkus wants to know why Tiassa is jabbing James in the kidney. I think he wanted a simple posted instance of where Tiassa was jabbing James in the kidney. In other words, what is the specific charge?
We know that both James and Tiassa (much more so Tiassa) have been passive aggressive in this exchange for years. James now is upset about a specific accusation from Tiassa but he hasn't been very direct in showing exactly where and what Tiassa said. It seems to require reading pages of dialog and then interpreting it in a specific way in order to be offended.
I don't see the irony. I agree with James, because I have experienced a similar thing, and I think Tiassa's trolling is bad for the site. There's no way James can come out of this without getting poo on him. I think he's doing a thankless but vital task.
He could come out of it without this thread other than to announce that Tiassa is no longer a moderator. This is something that should have occurred years ago, IMO.
What makes you think I have a blind spot? I simply agree with his actions - and I have the courage of my convictions.
I don't think this has anything to do with "courage". Let's not be dramatic. You agree with James in most every case, some others don't. That's OK but it doesn't make James right and Tiassa wrong. Surprisingly (to me) there are some (very few) who have said they enjoy reading Tiassa's posts. I'm not one of them but it is what it is. James isn't without his faults. He is rigid in thought, frequently arrogant and rude in a way that, IMO, a moderator shouldn't be. I didn't say he was unhinged. I said that about Tiassa and you managed to read it as a slight to James because I said "Tiassa is the more unhinged".
It's easy to sit in the audience and throw poop at the guy who's holding the stopped buck. Maybe even cowardly. Those who were silent when this was smoldering and James was turning the other cheek should maybe consider that the time to speak up has passed and maybe keep silent so as not to appear hypocritical. It's a thought.
Again, it's not "cowardly" for others to do what you and James are also doing, which is to comment about another person. Enough with the drama.
James opened the thread, let it run too long and so at this point it is all about throwing poo at Tiassa. I don't think anyone really needs your "thought" on whether anyone here can speak up or not. There's not many here and everyone has spoken up.
Most everyone has commented over the years every time Tiassa began some passive aggressive complaint about James from years before the post. Are you selectively forgetting that when you had your "thought" that maybe "we" should now be quiet?
Who has "reported" more people on this site than anyone? You. I hope I'm not being "cowardly" in posting this. Maybe I'm being "courageous"? Maybe the "rigid" stick together?
Seriously, Tiassa doesn't belong as a moderator but he has never belonged as a moderator. He gets angry, isn't moderate in the least, and is barely able to communicate.
So, he is "worse" than James. However James isn't the ideal moderator. There is some potential there but he is at odds with everyone but you and slings mud at the poster in most every response. He isn't trying to fit in, get along, be friendly, or have a two-way discussion with anyone. It's a lecture, a "I'm right" one-way post and it usually ends with some misdirection such as "why do you care, why are you here, haven't you learned anything, maybe you should go and reflect on this" or it's just outright name calling. You know, like you just did with Sarkus telling him he doesn't have to read this thread. Neither do you and I or anyone else.
He would make a much better member than moderator because his "flaws" wouldn't have any effect on the communication. We would probably have a Bitcoin thread with discussion in it even though it offends his sensibilities. Where he just a member, he would just have to live with that instead of dominating and controlling every discussion.
He could call me a name and I could return the favor without being banned by another moderator. Socialization of the group almost always eliminates any bullying behavior because it then becauses a fair two-way street and bullies don't do well with that.
Tiassa "deserves" to be a member but I'm not sure how much he would contribute because he doesn't really know how to communicate. He either gets angry or he posts his long screed but there is little record of him having a reasonable two way discussion with anyone.
James can do that but he generally doesn't. He just pokes whoever he engages with "if you could read, you must be a troll, have you read a book, etc". It's not moderate or behavior that you would expect from a moderator. It doesn't inspire respect.
If you need the threat of a ban to run a discussion site (other than the nightly bots) then you don't have much of a discussion site.
It's beyond ironic for James to be this upset at being called (I guess) a racist when he was done the same many times over and with little thought or data, just because he can.
He even considers it "off topic" for me to bring it up here. It's entirely the topic.
The deed was done. He's been fired.
