unacceptable behavior in a poster

[Bells]

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.

I was in the middle of chemo you insensitive twit, which I explained to you at the time.

I mean sure, I could have stopped all of that to make sure I could sit up long enough to read the computer screen for any length of time without throwing up, just to make you happy. But I chose not to. Bad bad me. How dare I! As you said, I am such a terrible human being.

And for that, for telling you what was going on, you then called me a terrible human being. I mean you poor poor dear. How dare I not put my illness aside to do as you wished.

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, fuck that.

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 fucked, 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?

I told you I was sick. Repeatedly.. and you kept at me and at me and saying I was a hypocrite for not "denouncing" him. Win my rant? You abused me for being sick. And I pretty much told you where you could shove it.

And I can't believe we're still arguing about this in a thread that didn't even involve you. And you're still trying to make yourself out to be the victim.

What is wrong with you?

The case and the moderator discussion surrounding that sorry episode that was that thread was brought up here, between a moderator to an administrator as an example. It didn't even apply to you. That episode was used as an example. It was the most recent one that came to mind. In other words, mind your own business.

Hence my comment to you to go away. You kept trying to make this about you with me again and I repeatedly warned you to go away.. because this did not involve you and I asked you to stop trying to make it about you.

So I don't give a flying fuck what your goddamn 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.

:bugeye:

Are you insane?

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?

Do you want to know what the issue is about?

Read the OP.

And you cannot direct what examples I use. I used that episode that involved you and several others mind you (none of whom are vamping it up in here like you are) as the most recent example.

So no, it does not involve you AT ALL. Had I wanted to involve you, I would have mentioned you directly, not the "kaffir incident" which involved several members in my comments to James R (ie. NOT YOU).

Now go away. This does not involve you and is not about you. This thread is about a complaint from another member, and his complaint does not involve you, nor is it about you.

 

[S.A.M.]

i think you should just let people argue back and forth on the forum. it challenges them to back up their point and if not, then they will obviously lose the argument. it's not like they can't fire back. also, this is different than real life. in real life, there would be more of a need for protection as well as mediators but this is a forum, one is not a captive at work or school or being accosted in public.

one can just choose to disengage if they want. the only reason to step in would be if one were just making no points at all and just spouting insults constantly which is just trolling or constantly off-topic.

as for my personal opinion, this forum does feel a bit nazi-ish and cold. actually, it's very eerily chilly. it's like it has no soul for a science forum but that's no excuse. neil degrasse tyson is a good example of a human being that is a scientist. you are like corpses in deep freeze. i also don't appreciate banning of wacky posters because they add interest.

Agree with all of the above. I read threads like "should we ban believers" and I think, how hard is it NOT to click on a link that you have to actually suppress other peoples opinions rather than control yourself from reading and responding?

I'm not sure why we encourage a nanny forum, so that people who whine the most [and have a trigger finger which rarely moves from the report button] are the ones who are paid the most attention.

I was in the middle of chemo you insensitive twit, which I explained to you at the time.

I mean sure, I could have stopped all of that to make sure I could sit up long enough to read the computer screen for any length of time without throwing up, just to make you happy. But I chose not to. Bad bad me. How dare I! As you said, I am such a terrible human being.

And for that, for telling you what was going on, you then called me a terrible human being. I mean you poor poor dear. How dare I not put my illness aside to do as you wished.

Thats typical Geoff, insist on an argument whine if you don't participate and complain if you do.

 

[GeoffP]

You say vamping, I say baseless slander

I was in the middle of chemo you insensitive twit, which I explained to you at the time.

Which we've discussed. You don't get it - again. I didn't know you were in chemo when I PMed you, and when I found that out, I certainly didn't expect you to comment. Again, you don't seem to understand what's happening around you. I appreciate that a large part of this is probably your recent illness; you really need to think about the timeline in all this.

Now, just for conclusion, the guy was an actual bigot and you weren't concerned about it, ultimately. We've been over the reasons already.

The case and the moderator discussion surrounding that sorry episode that was that thread was brought up here, between a moderator to an administrator as an example. It didn't even apply to you. That episode was used as an example. It was the most recent one that came to mind. In other words, mind your own business.

You do not understand. If you misrepresent me in an example, it is absolutely my business, for two reasons: i) your examples slander me, and ii) if your argument is partially based on a complete misread of my comments (the rest being about BR), then I have an interest as a member to ensure an accurate representation of the record before changes get made. There are other questions here: what exactly was the point of Tiassa's soliloquy on the open forum, if his objective was pure reconciliation with James and the re-coalescence of the moderators? Was it not to make a point with the members? I'm a member. It's my business.

:bugeye:

Are you insane?

Sure, if you like.

Do you want to know what the issue is about?

Read the OP.

Well, we're off that now, aren't we?

And you cannot direct what examples I use. I used that episode that involved you and several others mind you (none of whom are vamping it up in here like you are)

And I care that no else protests their misrepresentation because...? I guess I don't care, actually. You're right in that I cannot direct your examples. But if you misrepresent those examples, I might comment - perhaps even acidly. If you misrepresent me, I absofucking will comment, if I catch you at it, and probably quite nastily. If you get very categorical and absolute about such mis-assertion, I may even drop a dime on it to the relevant parties. This is fair warning. Sorry if you don't like the system, but the old one wasn't working in a number of ways, and the new one is well within reasonable regs.

Now go away. This does not involve you and is not about you. This thread is about a complaint from another member, and his complaint does not involve you, nor is it about you.

Sorry: not going away. I have a great seat, and an interest in the proceedings.

They do say: speak of the devil, and he shall appear.

Speaking of which:

Agree with all of the above. I read threads like "should we ban believers" and I think, how hard is it NOT to click on a link that you have to actually suppress other peoples opinions rather than control yourself from reading and responding?

As hard as it is to admit this, I must actually agree with Sam here. Such threads go too far. There's no need for wholesale suppression.

Thats typical Geoff, insist on an argument whine if you don't participate and complain if you do.

And, if you're Sam: jump in, throw a few bombs, and gripe of unfairness when you blow your own foot off.

 

[Bells]

Okay Geoff..

All this is really not about you. Try and make it about you as much as you want or can, but it is not.

We have gone from discussing the issue as stated in the OP to again discussing you. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!

Not everything is about you.

So please, do not involve yourself in this. It doesn't involve you.

You are not Pj, you are not Buffalo - the subject matter of this thread.

So go away. Find another thread to make about yourself. Hell, start one if you want to.

But this thread isn't about you and you keep trying to make it about you by nitpicking any little thing that might be connected to you. It's as if you're stalking about anything that might involve you. Please stop.. Whatever example I use when discussing something with my colleage is none of your business. It didn't concern you. What it did concern was the moderation of that incident. Not you.


Here is the OP. Either discuss it or what is connected to it or go away.

 

[GeoffP]

Okay Geoff..

All this really is not about you. Try and make it about you as much as you want or can, but it really is not.

We have gone from discussing the issue as stated in the OP to again discussing you. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!

Not everything is about you.

So please, do not involve yourself in this. It doesn't involve you.

You are not Pj, you are not Buffalo - the subject matter of this thread.

One simple question: did you read Tiassa's post or not? The post I responded to. Did you read it? Answer, please.

I also have to ask how this statement -

It's as if you're stalking about anything that might involve you.

- jives with the rest of your post. So, the post doesn't concern me - not even as a member? - but it might involve me. How does that work?

This discussion raises the larger question of why you are even posting here. This thread doesn't concern you, Bells. It's not about you. You went into a long rant about some PMs we exchanged: but the thread is not about you, Bells. Please try to stop making everything about you. Okay?

How's that for parity?

 

[Bells]

I just facepalmed in real life..

One simple question: did you read Tiassa's post or not? The post I responded to. Did you read it? Answer, please.

You mean the one where he was discussing a moderator issue with quad and you automatically thought it involved you personally? That one?

I believed he was also curious as to why you were going on and on because it really was not about you or addressed to you? Your response was hilarious, really because you clearly did not see or understand that it wasn't about you. But no, you soldiered on. Which led Tiassa to clearly point out to you that you actually had no idea what was going on.

But did you stop there? No.

You then went on to again try to make it about you and then confuse Tiassa with Plazma. With another reminder from Tiassa that you actually had no real idea what was going on, and he was right. You did not then and you do not now. And again, Tiassa pointed it out to you.

And you still did not get it.

I also have to ask how this statement -


- jives with the rest of your post. So, the post doesn't concern me - not even as a member? - but it might involve me. How does that work?

What I meant is that you appear to be poring over posts trying to find something that might involve you, even when there is nothing that involves you in the thread and the posts in said thread.

So when you can't find one, you latch onto anything remotely close, even though it was a discussion about and between moderators, and tried to make it about you.

You really have no understanding of what is going on, do you?

This discussion raises the larger question of why you are even posting here. This thread doesn't concern you, Bells. It's not about you. You went into a long rant about some PMs we exchanged: but the thread is not about you, Bells. Please try to stop making everything about you. Okay?

Jesus Christ on a stick... Are you dense?

I reminded you to not lie when you decided to misrepresent what actually happened. And then I told you to stop posting about stuff you did not understand and again reminded you to not make this about yourself because it had NOTHING to do with you. And countless of posts later, I am still having to remind you of that.

Now either you are dense or a troll. Either way, either discuss the thread topic itself or go away.

As for why I am posting in here.. I was discussing a moderator issue pertaining to this thread with a fellow moderator. Not about you.

Go away!

 

[GeoffP]

You mean the one where he was discussing a moderator issue with quad and you automatically thought it involved you personally? That one?

You must all be mad. He specifically discusses his interpretation of some of my comments and issues involving me. It strains credulity to think that you cannot see that. Again: read his post. I want to at least have some proof that you glanced over the text that involves my comments - and specifically his reading of them. You cannot in honesty tell me that you've forgotten those debates. They happened like a week ago.

But did you stop there? No.

Damn right I didn't. If you use me as a straw man, the straw man is going to hit back.

What I meant is that you appear to be poring over posts trying to find something that might involve you, even when there is nothing that involves you in the thread and the posts in said thread.

That is an insane reading of this latest discussion, Bells. Do you honestly believe his comments about making a word naughty had nothing to do with me? I'm sorry, but this is impossible to believe.

Jesus Christ on a stick... Are you dense?

This is exactly what I'm wondering about you right now. Because you do in fact know what the context of his remarks was:

I reminded you to not lie when you decided to misrepresent what actually happened.

So you do at least admit obliquely that you do know what I'm griping about. For crying out loud. Was that so hard?

Now either you are dense or a troll. Either way, either discuss the thread topic itself or go away.

I am discussing Tiassa's comments about the thread. If he, or you, or I want to make a separate thread: fine with me. But don't make sweeping generalizations about the issue that are based on a false reading of some selected examples. So this is about the issues, Bells. If you don't see that, it's not my fault.

As for why I am posting in here.. I was discussing a moderator issue pertaining to this thread with a fellow moderator. Not about you.

Tiassa's comments were about me, and he knows it, and so do you. Tell you what: describe what this issue was about without the examples he gave. Go on.

Go away!

Nope. My comments are on-topic: Tiassa's examples are specious and maliciously interpreted in one case at the very least and, as such, don't support his perspective.

 

[Bells]

FML.. Enough already..

You must all be mad. He specifically discusses his interpretation of some of my comments and issues involving me. It strains credulity to think that you cannot see that. Again: read his post. I want to at least have some proof that you glanced over the text that involves my comments - and specifically his reading of them. You cannot in honesty tell me that you've forgotten those debates. They happened like a week ago.



Damn right I didn't. If you use me as a straw man, the straw man is going to hit back.



That is an insane reading of this latest discussion, Bells. Do you honestly believe his comments about making a word naughty had nothing to do with me? I'm sorry, but this is impossible to believe.



This is exactly what I'm wondering about you right now. Because you do in fact know what the context of his remarks was:



So you do at least admit obliquely that you do know what I'm griping about. For crying out loud. Was that so hard?



I am discussing Tiassa's comments about the thread. If he, or you, or I want to make a separate thread: fine with me. But don't make sweeping generalizations about the issue that are based on a false reading of some selected examples. So this is about the issues, Bells. If you don't see that, it's not my fault.



Tiassa's comments were about me, and he knows it, and so do you. Tell you what: describe what this issue was about without the examples he gave. Go on.



Nope. My comments are on-topic: Tiassa's examples are specious and maliciously interpreted in one case at the very least and, as such, don't support his perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S8OsJOP4Bw

 

[GeoffP]

Well, that made perfect sense.

At the very least, it raised no points that could be refuted.

 

[Bells]

Well, that made perfect sense.

At the very least, it raised no points that could be refuted.

It was all discussed on page 3 of this thread.

Do try to keep up.

You got the answer you deserve with that link, you fruitcake.

Now, go away.

 

[GeoffP]

It was all discussed on page 3 of this thread.

And followed up later, by Tiassa, to whom I am responding.

Now, go away.

You first. :shrug:

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Bells

I will note that there are some issues Geoff raises that I would be happy to address, except that it's futile. For insance, note his focus on me. To the one, yeah, I can see why. To the other—

My comments are on-topic: Tiassa's examples are specious and maliciously interpreted in one case at the very least and, as such, don't support his perspective.

—he's maintaining a fallacy.

See, in the past, when Geoff has been offered examples of why I have the opinion of his posts that I do, he changes the subject and goes on the attack.

He has examples why I view him as I do; he's ducked them before, and yet he still bawls about it.

Although, you might get a kick out of this. Geoff can't, since he's not privy to the other record, but both of those examples include reference to a particular episode. Now ... consider a recent suspension issued when a member insulted someone on staff. The staffer laid out his complaint, and someone else executed the suspension. I'm pretty sure you know which one I'm talking about. And that's well and fine, how that one went, I guess. But, still, compare that suspension to the episode included in both those examples. All I'm saying is that it might seem strange how much our standards have changed in recent times. Of course, how much have our standards really changed, since there's still so much toxin and filth in the water as such?

It's just a curious comparison.

But that also brings me to ....

• • •​

Geoff:

Look, man, what can I tell you? It really isn't about you. But let's get something out of the way:

• I know you don't like how I view you.
• I have given you examples, before, of why I hold that view.
• You have not refuted those examples so much as changed the subject.
∴ I am not sympathetic to your continued whining about specious and malicious interpretation.​

The reason your behavior is mentioned in the first place is that it happened to be you. The kafir episode was a repeat of something we've witnessed before. Indeed, there is an irony on this count about your rant:

Tiassa, you have at different points raised and lowered your own evaluations of myself – one notable time being when I wrote to James to ask for Sam’s ban to be lifted, simply because I didn’t feel it was justified; I forget the details and they are of no import.

The circumstances are, actually, important, Geoff. It was the last time that something happened.

It was an ugly affair, and at the heart of it was the question of whether S.A.M. was suspended based on what the complaint alleged or what she actually wrote. The kafir episode resulted in a member suspension, had similar suggestions of a rushed decision, and and involved Islam.

As I noted in #109, the post to which you so strenuously object:

We had a huge fight at the end of 2009 over an abstract question that essentially treads in the realm of whether or not we should substantiate the accusation before punishing the accused. And in the year-plus since, it has become quite clear: If the accused is Muslim, no substantiation is necessary. And maybe some have noticed, we just had that fight again.​

And that, Geoff, is why the kafir episode is relevant. And, yes, we know you don't like how I see you, but I'm not the only one in this community with a poor opinion of your behavior, and in that context, it only makes certain outcomes seem even more bizarre.

Certain outcomes? Well, see, that was the whole context of the discussion at that point. That is, you might notice there is "someone else" I've been especially hard on, and it's not James, and it's not Will. Okay, yeah, sure, I've been kind of hard on them, but if you follow my discussion with Quadraphonics, and even the part where Will and I seem to have stopped fighting for the moment, you'll notice I'm talking about how we, the staff, have screwed up, behaved inconsistently, and otherwise dug ourselves into a hole where petty disputes like PJ and Buffalo Roam take on the kind of significance they do.

And that's what this part of the discussion is about. You don't like how I see you? I don't care. You complain that my opinion of you changes. Geoff, I still appreciate the time we had that fun little digression about the dangers and obstacles facing revolutions. And when we're having a conversation like that, and there's nothing under the sun in your words that strikes me as bigoted, why the fuck should I jump down your throat? You and I might see at least some superficial aspects in what we were discussing, but that's still more subtle and substantial than many of our neighbors can achieve. Why on earth would I want to spoil such an occasion?

Anything your ego might demand at this moment is irrelevant.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

You people nag like you are married to each other.

 

[GeoffP]

Getting back in the way

Bells

I will note that there are some issues Geoff raises that I would be happy to address, except that it's futile. For insance, note his focus on me.

The guy who just directed about half the focus of his initial post on me finds my sudden choice of focus curious. All right.

See, in the past, when Geoff has been...

Long since discussed and consigned to the trash bin of SF, Tiassa: you might try the last link of yours for a wrap-up. I know you linked it, but I would like to see you read it.

• • •​

Geoff:

Look, man, what can I tell you? It really isn't about you. But let's get something out of the way:

• I know you don't like how I view you.
• I have given you examples, before, of why I hold that view.
• You have not refuted those examples so much as changed the subject.
∴ I am not sympathetic to your continued whining about specious and malicious interpretation.​

[/quote]

Tiassa: your examples, as usual, are fairly well twisted around. There's no convincing you of that, of course, but don't start pretending that those examples haven't been refuted, period. It's old. It's lame. Yes, I understand your limited reasoning on this; it just doesn't happen to be reasonable, or correct. So in as much as you're entitled to return and rehash the same distal issue, over and over and over again, I am entitled to promptly tear you down, and when you similarly misalign more contemporary arguments. And this point is getting much more noticeable now, as you may have twigged to.

The reason your behavior is mentioned in the first place is that it happened to be you. The kafir episode was a repeat of something we've witnessed before. Indeed, there is an irony on this count about your rant:

It always impresses me - and alarms me, moreso - the really considerable amount of disconnect that goes into the connection you and Bells make between those two items: as if, on the latter hand, I'm somehow attempting to insult another person who is not Muslim, who just happens to be...me. I've tried to inject the term intent into these sorts of discussions like an antibody to dissonance, but I can tell when I've been beaten. Words seem to stand up like dominoes for the two of you: bereft of direction and context, ordinal blips on a flat horizon.

I appreciate your digression into the past leading to the present, Tiassa. It's informative and I quite understand the bind you find yourselves in. But here's the thing: it's not a question of your opinion, Tiassa, because your opinions are not infrequently arbitrary and distorted; and while we're on the gloomy topic of community brow-beating, you don't smell like roses to a pretty wide chunk of the constituency either. It becomes a problem when you try to use those lighter-than-air concepts as stepping stones to launch yourself onto a higher soap box. One: because they're bullshit as descriptors of me. Two, following in part from one: if they're bullshit as cited, then it's entirely possible you're also talking nonsense about the greater problem. You follow? It's the scientific process at work, in which you are skipping steps. Think you've got enough case with BR et al? Fine. Base your substance on them, and leave your questionable descriptions of my intent out of it, or else clean up your preamble. No biggie.

So in summary, I have no problem with you picking examples for discussion, Tiassa. Pick as many as you like. You can discuss all kinds of things here. Just mind your representation of me as an example, or round and round we go. If you want to call it my ego kicking your ass around the forums, then that works too. :shrug:

Thanks for your time.