Superstring - Please Respond

[StrawDog]

Seriously, through this entire conversation I've asked for you to use the scientific method while making your statements. They may all be valid, it's just you haven't proven them so. Later, when we continue this this conversation, I expect better because the next time it will be in moderator mode that we discuss correct technique on this thread.

Straw, your statements are reaching the point of trolling which will receive a very different response from me. You are required to support your statements, especially these kind. And NO, resorting to the comments like, "The evidence speaks for itself..." does not count backing up your claim.

Before I waste my time, I don`t appreciate your veiled threats. I have engaged in a decent manner and tone, I don`t claim to be the expert regarding debating technique and skill level. I, like many others, is engaged in a process of learning and engagement. The TONE of the above comment, in relation to my track record on this forum, is unacceptable and unwarranted. This leads me to conclude there is a vendetta afoot on this board, aimed at dissenting voices. Dissent and opposing views being the essence of healthy debate. In my opinion, you are abusing your role as a moderator, and I expect a response that is accordingly, acceptable to me. If none is forthcoming, I will happily move on.

Note. I am not denying the fact that my debate is flawed, I am objecting to the tone and manner of your post.

 

[James R]

StrawDog:

I'm not sure what this is about, but I'd suggest you might want to take a look around you at how certain other political members have faired of late, particularly when they have argued about moderator bias.

And no, this is not a veiled threat. I don't know what your issue is with superstring01, and at this stage I don't feel the need to investigate further.

 

[Gustav]

string is quite within his rights to demand sources from you, anyone can

no one however can ask string to do so because he will delete all instances of the requests

alright
those are nothing but extended opinion pieces
what are the sources they cite in support of their conclusions that pertain to the issue at hand?

In the case of "The Looming Tower" and "Ghost Wars" I can state specific pages and quotes that are referenced. With Straw,

that too was deleted

/befuddled

is it such an unreasonable request?
i mean...so and so wrote about it in a book so it must be true?

are these these the new and improved standards?
i find them wanting

Dear Gustav,

You have received an infraction at SciForums.com.

Reason: Trolling / Meaningless Post Content
-------
Gustav, reposting information that has been deleted is prohibited. I'm not playing your game. Go to some forum and troll.
All the best,
SciForums.com

explain please

 

[StrawDog]

Strings response for the record.

First, the threats weren't thinly veiled. In fact, the one was highlighted in red to serve as a strong reminder of the fact.

Second, I'm tired of you posting bullshit and not supporting it. I've been trying to guide you to how you need to behave, if you need a warning to do so, then I'll issue it. You are REQUIRED to post sources which support your claims. End of discussion, if you don't like it, and refuse to follow the rules, then you and the mod team will head down an undesirable path. If you play right, then everything will be fine.

Third, If you don't like the tone, then work at improving your behavior. I'm not required to tippy toe around to keep you happy. Follow the rules, support your claims, and there won't be an issue. It's how this forum is supposed to work, and how it will work with or without you.

~String

 

[superstring01]

Note. I am not denying the fact that my debate is flawed, I am objecting to the tone and manner of your post.

So, you don't like it when a moderator tells you to play by the rules? Sorry. Deal with it. Better yet: DON'T EVER GET A JOB. Because you'll always have someone bigger than you telling you to play by rules you don't like. That's life.

I'm not beating around the bush, playing coy, or hinting at anything. I'm being totally direct and blunt, Straw. No need to read between the lines! I'll repeat: You've be warned. If you don't improve, you'll be suspended.

In recent weeks we've seen some changes in the forum. At this point in the game, I'll state honestly, I don't care whether you like the direction or not. The WE&P forum has actively seeded the rest of the forum with malcontents and we are working on changing that.

To that end (and in this case) you see me moderating your behavior because you aren't playing by the rules.

You claimed:

• Bhutto's assassination was linked to the USA
• The USA is actively destabilizing Pakistan through the actions of the CIA and other covert activity.

In order to support those claims, you provided commentary articles and opinion pieces, which amount to little more than stating fluff. If we play by those rules, I'm certain that I can find well-written opinion pieces pointing out the savagery of Muslims, how the religion is pure evil and how all Semites should be exterminated. But does that prove anything? No.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If you don't play by this rule, well, expect me or another mod to correct you. If you're just too sensitive to deal with the corrective action that has been given you, then perhaps you're just a little too sensitive to post on this website. I'll give it to you like I give it to the malcontents who work under me: "It's time to make a career decision. Play by the rules, or go somewhere else."

~String

 

[Gustav]

link

I remind you, again, that this website runs on the scientific method, you are required to prove your points. Sometimes, it's okay to state an opinion, but when in a debate about specific facts, you are required to cough up the goods. That's how it works. A moderator has, TWICE NOW, requested information from you on your statements and TWICE has not received them.

lets recap events

1 - i request sources
you provide books

2 - i request sources used in books
you refuse to answer and delete

3 - i request again
you refuse to answer, you delete again and issue warning

you set a really bad example, string

 

[superstring01]

link




lets recap events

1 - i request sources
you provide books

2 - i request sources used in books
you refuse to answer and delete

3 - i request again
you refuse to answer, you delete again and issue warning

you set a really bad example, string

You're being ignored because you are a troll and this is the last time, outside the warning system, that I will acknowledge you in this matter. You were warned for re-posting the same material three times. Go play somewhere else Gustav.

~String

 

[StrawDog]

So, you don't like it when a moderator tells you to play by the rules? Sorry. Deal with it. Better yet: DON'T EVER GET A JOB. Because you'll always have someone bigger than you telling you to play by rules you don't like. That's life.

I'm not beating around the bush, playing coy, or hinting at anything. I'm being totally direct and blunt, Straw. No need to read between the lines! I'll repeat: You've be warned. If you don't improve, you'll be suspended.

In recent weeks we've seen some changes in the forum. At this point in the game, I'll state honestly, I don't care whether you like the direction or not. The WE&P forum has actively seeded the rest of the forum with malcontents and we are working on changing that.

To that end (and in this case) you see me moderating your behavior because you aren't playing by the rules.

You claimed:

• Bhutto's assassination was linked to the USA
• The USA is actively destabilizing Pakistan through the actions of the CIA and other covert activity.

In order to support those claims, you provided commentary articles and opinion pieces, which amount to little more than stating fluff. If we play by those rules, I'm certain that I can find well-written opinion pieces pointing out the savagery of Muslims, how the religion is pure evil and how all Semites should be exterminated. But does that prove anything? No.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If you don't play by this rule, well, expect me or another mod to correct you. If you're just too sensitive to deal with the corrective action that has been given you, then perhaps you're just a little too sensitive to post on this website. I'll give it to you like I give it to the malcontents who work under me: "It's time to make a career decision. Play by the rules, or go somewhere else."

~String

I reiterate, as first stated.

Note. I am not denying the fact that my debate is flawed, I am objecting to the tone and manner of your post.

Please respond to this.

An allusion to TROLLING, is utterly unaceptable. Please indicate, with examples, exactly how you reached this conclusion.

 

[Gustav]

heh
straw acknowledges correction and asks string not to yell
string comes in here yelling even louder

haha

show some maturity and restraint, fella
you are on a unnecessary rampage
having a bad hair day or something?

 

[James R]

Please respond to this.

I thought you left. Didn't you post a Goodbye cruel world thread earlier?

 

[James R]

gustav:

You are developing a bad habit of sticking your nose in the middle of disputes between moderators and other members that do not concern you. If you want to keep sticking your neck out, bear in mind that it may come back to bite you sooner or later.

Best wishes.

 

[superstring01]

Please respond to this.

I already did. I told you, in a nut shell, if you didn't like the tone, too bad. I couldn't possibly be more clear. Since day one, you've favored large claims and little evidence. That's going to change. It's changed for Buffalo, it's changed for Q, it's changed for PJ, it'll change for you too, or (as I stated) you won't be allowed to post anymore.

An allusion to TROLLING, is utterly unaceptable. Please indicate, with examples, exactly how you reached this conclusion.

troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

~String

 

[Gustav]

You're being ignored because you are a troll

for asking you to provide citations?
come now
thats just patently disingenuous

string supports his argument by saying... i paraphrase......

"so and so wrote a book about it so it must be true"

I asked for proof of those claims. Books. Articles. Studies. I don't give a fuck where they are from, but they are required.

.......are required to support your extraordinary claims with extraordinary proof.

yeh
"fuck" where the proof comes from

I will give you mine: Lawrence Wright ("The Looming Tower"/Pulitzer Prize - Investigative Journalism); John Miller, Michael Stone & Chris Mitchell (ABC News, "The Cell"), Steve Coll ("Ghost Wars", Pulitzer Prize - Investigative Journalism); Lawrence Freedman ("A Choice of Enemies") and MOST important of all: Omar Nasiri ("Inside the Jihad: My Life with Al Qaeda").

"read the books" my foot
thats just a fallacious appeal to authority

again
who or what are the sources?
present them so i can assess credibility

 

[StrawDog]

I thought you left. Didn't you post a Goodbye cruel world thread earlier?

Your "us" and "them" bias is clear. What are you trying to achieve with this post?

My posts are limited, to the Feedback forum, between Admins and myself.

 

[Gustav]

gustav:

You are developing a bad habit of sticking your nose in the middle of disputes between moderators and other members that do not concern you. If you want to keep sticking your neck out, bear in mind that it may come back to bite you sooner or later.

Best wishes.

sure
however if i have logic and reason on my side i should have nothing to fear right?
you do notice i support string on this yes?

string is quite within his rights to demand sources from you, anyone can

in any case dont you think mod/member disputes have a relevance to all of us? that we can all learn from these episodes?

james?

 

[StrawDog]

I already did. I told you, in a nut shell, if you didn't like the tone, too bad. I couldn't possibly be more clear. Since day one, you've favored large claims and little evidence. That's going to change. It's changed for Buffalo, it's changed for Q, it's changed for PJ, it'll change for you too, or (as I stated) you won't be allowed to post anymore.
~String

Your ongoing belligerence is noted. Your attitude, manner and tone, is noted and reflected in your gleeful banning spree and reference thereof.

As an aside, no hard feelings, I understand that the role of moderator is not an easy one, and that you are likely just having a bad day.

Best wishes.

 

[superstring01]

I worked 6 out of 9 hours. Left work early. Went to the gym. Took a nap. Signed on to the forum to be exposed to more unsupported political BS. That, and only that, is the impetus of my actions. Looking for external excuses for my actions is common tactic used by people who don't want to own up to their own issues.

~String

 

[Gustav]

link

Well, I thought I had. I mean, if the standard here is to list some books and claim they support assertions, without even making the assertions directly relevant, that's not too high a bar.

No. The standard is that if you make wild claims, you are required to support them with solid evidence.

Or do I have to list some books I've read, to make that all match some "scientific method" of response?

Yes. Ice, I know it hurts you to hear this, but you too are required to support your extraordinary claims with extraordinary proof.

i dont think strings's "extraordinary proof" is a standard we should lower ourselves to

thoughts?

I asked you to support your claims and you provide two opinion pieces on how the US is destablizing Pakistan which themselves, provide not one single shred of evidence that such destablization exists beyond just saying that it exists. Making a statement, and saying that somebody else says it, doesn't make it true.

i wholeheartedly agree but why is string exempting himself from this?

 

[James R]

Your "us" and "them" bias is clear.

You think?

The funny thing is, I'm more with your "us" than with your "them". You obviously don't know my views well enough to even have worked that out.

What are you trying to achieve with this post?

I just find it strange that somebody who has decided to leave would want to stick around to argue with a moderator. Call me crazy, but I don't see the point myself. Maybe you can explain.

 

[Brian Foley]

Before I waste my time, I don`t appreciate your veiled threats. I have engaged in a decent manner and tone, I don`t claim to be the expert regarding debating technique and skill level. I, like many others, is engaged in a process of learning and engagement. The TONE of the above comment, in relation to my track record on this forum, is unacceptable and unwarranted. This leads me to conclude there is a vendetta afoot on this board, aimed at dissenting voices. Dissent and opposing views being the essence of healthy debate. In my opinion, you are abusing your role as a moderator, and I expect a response that is accordingly, acceptable to me. If none is forthcoming, I will happily move on.

Note. I am not denying the fact that my debate is flawed, I am objecting to the tone and manner of your post.

There is nothing new with this superstring issuing veiled threats on this forum I have twice been threatened by him with banning he even deleted an entire thread of mine because he deemed it Anti-American. In April of this year I got a PM from him that I would be banned if I referred to him as 'not a sharp tool'.