unacceptable behavior in a poster

[GeoffP]

GeoffP

Before I waste both our time on a response you're probably not going to pay any real attention to, I would appreciate your honest answer to a particular question:

Do you really think that was just about you, or might there be more to it?​

I do indeed read your posts, Tiassa, close as they approach to the living death. Here's an honest answer back at you:

Do you really think that when you implicate me in supposed forum-wide problems - and simultaneously damn me with yet more slander - that I give a flying fuck about your fallacious approach to what you purport to be the finer issues?​

So you'll use me as an offensive example, but I should take no offense from that. "Here is a vile man; doth not our forum reek from his vileness? But take no offense, peon. I stand on your head merely that I may see more clearly." Idiotic. No, really: idiotic. Use another example - maybe one that makes sense, even - and do unto others what you claim they don't unto you: READ THEIR POSTS.

This has gone beyond the borders of the ridiculous. Why are you still an admin?

 

[Tiassa]

And there's our answer

Do you really think that when you implicate me in supposed forum-wide problems - and simultaneously damn me with yet more slander - that I give a flying fuck about your fallacious approach to what you purport to be the finer issues?

Actually, what your answer tells me is that you're simply ranting egotistically without the slightest clue what's actually going on.

Why are you still an admin?

I'm an admin?

• • •​

SO this was all about GeoffP?

Nope. He justs wants it to be.

 

[GeoffP]

Could your position be more at odds with existence?

Actually, what your answer tells me is that you're simply ranting egotistically without the slightest clue what's actually going on.

Actually, your answer tells me you've dissociated completely with reality. You really don't understand that by making me an implicit example - which everyone else seems to have picked up on - you are engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour you claim to abhor? And you expect me to just let this slide? Or even that anyone should believe you? Examples:

You hate Muslims, and insist on dishonest definitions for words in order to complain about how evil Muslims are? You have administrative support.

- Directed at myself. Unless some other poster were accused of making up dishonest definitions of words to satisfy...no idea, something in your own psyche, I guess.

Complaining about the dirty, racist Muslims and insisting that outlying, abusive definitions of a word are, in fact, the prevailing meaning?

- Same. I suppose it could have been anyone else, if only they fit your biased description of events. There must be dozens on the site, surely.

Quadraphonics picked up on this: the passive-aggressive bag is getting pretty old. It's not even good passive-aggressive. Must we honestly endure this simpleton act? To what end? This is like pissing on my leg under the pretense of trying to determine the constituents of piss. I appreciate that you don't get what it's about, or don't care: it's not happening to you, so why would you? Yes, everyone gets the way your narrative works.

If I pretended for a moment that none of the above had occurred: I appreciate that you have a beef with James. I get that you don't like where the forum is. That would even almost be laudible, coming from a different source. But choose a different false example. Very simple.

I'm an admin?

According to the site, yes. I know: I, too, was shocked by the implication.

 

[Tiassa]

(chortle!)

Actually, your answer tells me you've dissociated completely with reality. You really don't understand that by making me an implicit example - which everyone else seems to have picked up on - you are engaging in exactly the kind of behaviour you claim to abhor? And you expect me to just let this slide? Or even that anyone should believe you? Examples:

You still fail to demonstrate any understanding of what's actually going on.

According to the site, yes. I know: I, too, was shocked by the implication.

They really should send me the memo.

How did the site inform you that I'm an admin?

 

[GeoffP]

You still fail to demonstrate any understanding of what's actually going on.

No: as my post demonstrates, I've got it to a tee. Again: choose some different fallacious examples. You're like Sam with ADD.

They really should send me the memo.

How did the site inform you that I'm an admin?

Please: this isn't about you.

 

[quadraphonics]

So, a related quote from a related thread (now-locked, sorry for the... necromancy? Cross-contamination?):

Personally, I don't want to be accused of anti-Muslim bias in my role as administrator here, any more than I want to be accused of anti-Christian bias or anti-atheist bias.

Understandable enough. But it seems that there are certain contexts - and that this forum is one of them - wherein such a desire is at odds with the desire to actually not be biased to begin with. I.e., certain of the people who would accuse you of bias, are not doing so in good faith. Which is to say that, if you want to run a genuinely unbiased forum, you should want to be accused of certain forms of bias by certain accusers.

Even if we limit the question to those we are confident are speaking in good faith, it may be that what one should avoid is consistently being accused of any particular bias. I wouldn't be particularly bothered by repeated accusations of bias, provided they don't add up coherently. That would just mean that we have a group of vocal complainers with certain narrow perspectives. Of course a difficulty there is in equalizing for the differeing levels of vocalism (is that a word) in different quarters.

 

[Tiassa]

(Thpbpbpbpbpbpbpbpbt!)

Please: this isn't about you.

I figured you would refuse to answer the question. Of course, that's the point. You can't:

"According to the site, yes. I know: I, too, was shocked by the implication."​

You lied. Then again, that's not surprising.

I'm not an admin, and I never have been.

However, we do come back to the question of how to respond to you, since you have no idea what's actually going on.

 

[GeoffP]

I figured you would refuse to answer the question. Of course, that's the point.

So sorry: "Supermoderator". Do continue to harp on it though; I enjoyed your taste of desperation as you scented evidence of an even higher personal authority.

However, we do come back to the question of how to respond to you, since you have no idea what's actually going on.

Why start to engage now in a question you had no real interest in being factual about anyway? If you rope-a-dope long enough, maybe I'll lose interest.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Tiassa, I'm shocked.
On that link Geoffp just made, it says you come from a Brothel in Washington.

 

[GeoffP]

I think you mean Bother, Washington.

 

[James R]

quadraphonics:

....certain of the people who would accuse you of bias, are not doing so in good faith. Which is to say that, if you want to run a genuinely unbiased forum, you should want to be accused of certain forms of bias by certain accusers.

Not wanting it to happen and not expecting it to happen are two different things. In point of fact, I get accused of all kinds of bias regularly, mostly by disgruntled posters who I have moderated, and sometimes also by their cheer squads. The actual type of bias I'm accused of tends to shift around with the particular circumstances of the moderation. If I ban pjdude or joepistole, then I either have a personal gripe with them or I'm a conservative. If I ban Buffalo Roam, then either I have a personal gripe with him or else I'm a raving Liberal. If I ban SAM, then I most likely have an anti-Muslim bias, and maybe I'm sexist too. And if I disagree with Tiassa, then I'm invariably dishonest and unfit to be an administrator.

Even if we limit the question to those we are confident are speaking in good faith, it may be that what one should avoid is consistently being accused of any particular bias. I wouldn't be particularly bothered by repeated accusations of bias, provided they don't add up coherently. That would just mean that we have a group of vocal complainers with certain narrow perspectives. Of course a difficulty there is in equalizing for the differeing levels of vocalism (is that a word) in different quarters.

Agreed. I think we're on the same page here.

Of course, I'll be anti-Muslim every time I ban a Muslim (according to that person and his or her cheer squad), and I'll be a closed-minded, brainwashed-by-the-system, follower of "standard science" every time I ban somebody who trolls the Physics forum with pseudoscience. And if it happens more than once, I'll undoubtedly get the same accusations the next time, too, from the same people.

 

[Bells]

Looks like I've got a lot of catching up to do.
Time to go root through the rubbish.

Dee Cee

DeeCee, we go way back on this forum.

And I actually like you. And I normally don't like people. You are a sensible person (well sort of).

Trust me, save your sanity.


Don't do it...


-------------------------------------------------------------

Bells, too, has at different times sworn off all contact with me, only to reopen it now and again, in order to attack me wholesale – and in one case to actually have a real discussion, which was very pleasant.

And in this instance, you sent me PM's demanding I participate in the original thread calling me a hypocrite for not participating. When I told you that at that time I had much more important things to worry about, you had a bit of a rant about my supposed hypocrisy and made it about you. And when I explained to you in detail (because for some weird reason you couldn't connect the mile wide dots) what was going on and why and how that prevented me from participating much at that time, you called me a terrible human and accused me of connecting the issues, which I had not done.

That was your reaction to me..

So once the effects of my treatment I was undergoing at the time wore off enough to allow me to concentrate a bit better, I went and had a read of the thread you demanded I participate in. And many weeks later, here we are. And you are still making it about you.

This is not about you.

Contrary to what you may believe, this forum does not revolve around you. Moderators bashing each other's heads in is not about you.

The issue surrounding that incident with you was used here as an example. People use example's all the time. We could have used a turd on the footpath as an example instead. This would still would not be about you.

 

[adoucette]

We could have used a turd on the footpath as an example instead.

In that example is Geoffp supposed to be the Turd or the Footpath?

 

[Bells]

In that example is Geoffp supposed to be the Turd or the Footpath?

You make me facepalm in real life Arthur.

 

[adoucette]

What's a matter Bells, you got no sense of humor at all???

 

[Bells]

What's a matter Bells, you got no sense of humor at all???

Not today.

Some days, laughter just seems out of place.

 

[adoucette]

Sorry to hear that.

Hopefully tomorrow will be a better day.

Arthur

 

[Bells]

Meh..

Back to the subject at hand..

Which as been sidetracked..

 

[GeoffP]

And in this instance, you sent me PM's demanding I participate in the original thread calling me a hypocrite for not participating.

Kinda, yeah. I was pointing out an actual bigot, who I didn't think you'd denounce. And you didn't, so more fool me, I guess.

When I told you that at that time I had much more important things to worry about, you had a bit of a rant about my supposed hypocrisy and made it about you.

No. You see, you still don't get this. I didn't know you were sick, and I told you that I hoped you got better, and reiterated my point that I just didn't like being attacked for shit I hadn't done. That was it. Maybe I was too hard on you, and maybe I should have just let you win your rant. Maybe that would have been the nice thing to do. But what's that really mean here: "Bells, you're sick, so I'm really everything you allege?" Well, the hell with that.

So once the effects of my treatment I was undergoing at the time wore off enough to allow me to concentrate a bit better, I went and had a read of the thread you demanded I participate in. And many weeks later, here we are. And you are still making it about you.

No: you don't get it. Tiassa doesn't get it. Maybe neither of you ever will. When my name is dragged - dragged, mind you, not introduced by me - into a long screed as an example of bigoted evil posters and how Tiassa would slay them if only the administration would let him - then it is about me. It's a tacit, oblique assertion of point A based on fact B - except that fact B is wrong, so far as can be inferred from the examples given, and fact B is based on me. How is Tiassa's assertion then in any way valid where it coincides with me? "Shut up, example: you're just an unwitting example." What, seriously?

So I don't care what your mod problems are, or if the War in Heaven is going badly for you: if you drag my name into the dirt, I will fuck back with you. And if the issue isn't about me, pick some different examples. There should be tons that don't involve me, if the problem is so ball-smackingly vast. Because this problem isn't about me. Right?

 

[GeoffP]

By the by, Bells: will this then be the fourth time you have asked me not to speak to you? Am I allowed to speak back to you? When are we on hiatus again?