Mod Hat - Warning
Mod Hat - Warning
You chose to argue with moderator advice to another member. You chose to demand a standard. You now refuse to accept that standard.
This is an official warning that you are not to continue trolling this topic or any other.
It is disappointing that the moderators at this website should be expected to waste their time on dishonest people such as yourself whose only discernible purpose is to behave in a disruptive and inflammatory manner. We are not obliged to tolerate such behavior. And we are not obliged to give a goddamn about whether or not you're "intimidated". The rules are good enough for you to pay lip service to in order to walk through the door, but they're apparently too much to ask once you're inside. Cram the attitude. We're not impressed.
The problem you face by your dishonesty, Mountainhare, is that your assertions of "common fucking knowledge" are suspect. Trying to change the subject and pretend you presented a different argument than you did does not help your standing.
You've made an assertion, and you refuse to back it. That the three primary voices on one side of this topic discussion feel they have no obligation to support their inflammatory or contentious assertions suggests that they are nothing more than trolls in this forum. If you wish to conduct yourself with a measure of integrity, you are more than welcome here. If, however, you prefer to continue trolling, suitable accommodations can be made.
If you are unwilling to provide any support for your skewed and contentious assertions, those assertions will be regarded as trolling. And, as I have informed your colleague above, trolling is unwelcome behavior in this forum.
Then you need to take your misogynistic propaganda elsewhere. It is not at all surprising that you are unable to support the repugnant distortion you posted in #146.
I'm sorry you are unwilling to accede to a standard that has been brought by the conduct of your cohorts into sharp relief throughout this discussion. However, when you return from your well-earned vacation, you will be expected to support contentious assertions with some sort of credible reference. If this is too much to ask, suitable accommodations can be made.
Recognizing, however, that your suspension is a crossfire casualty, I will at least attempt to answer your issue of why you were expected to provide such a reference. Quite simply, Angrybellsprout brought the issue of references to the fore by refusing to support particularly contentious and inflammatory assertions, which he attempted to qualify as "common knowledge". He was specifically warned on this count, and post #145, to which you responded, was another attempt to evade his responsibility to support his assertions. Mountainhare, who responded to a warning given to ABS regarding references by demanding references of others (which demand, incidentally, was obliged) echoed your skewed assertion in support of Angrybellsprout. Perhaps you resent the obligation Mountainhare's demand brought upon you, but if you expect moderators to be fair around here, well, that includes you, too.
As with your associate, I would remind that the rules are more than simply something you pay lip service to in order to come through the door. If they are too much to ask once you're in, we can certainly alleviate you of the burden of defiance.
Mod Hat - Warning
Mountainhare said:
You chose to argue with moderator advice to another member. You chose to demand a standard. You now refuse to accept that standard.
This is an official warning that you are not to continue trolling this topic or any other.
It is disappointing that the moderators at this website should be expected to waste their time on dishonest people such as yourself whose only discernible purpose is to behave in a disruptive and inflammatory manner. We are not obliged to tolerate such behavior. And we are not obliged to give a goddamn about whether or not you're "intimidated". The rules are good enough for you to pay lip service to in order to walk through the door, but they're apparently too much to ask once you're inside. Cram the attitude. We're not impressed.
The problem you face by your dishonesty, Mountainhare, is that your assertions of "common fucking knowledge" are suspect. Trying to change the subject and pretend you presented a different argument than you did does not help your standing.
You've made an assertion, and you refuse to back it. That the three primary voices on one side of this topic discussion feel they have no obligation to support their inflammatory or contentious assertions suggests that they are nothing more than trolls in this forum. If you wish to conduct yourself with a measure of integrity, you are more than welcome here. If, however, you prefer to continue trolling, suitable accommodations can be made.
• • •
MetaKron said:
If you are unwilling to provide any support for your skewed and contentious assertions, those assertions will be regarded as trolling. And, as I have informed your colleague above, trolling is unwelcome behavior in this forum.
Then you need to take your misogynistic propaganda elsewhere. It is not at all surprising that you are unable to support the repugnant distortion you posted in #146.
I'm sorry you are unwilling to accede to a standard that has been brought by the conduct of your cohorts into sharp relief throughout this discussion. However, when you return from your well-earned vacation, you will be expected to support contentious assertions with some sort of credible reference. If this is too much to ask, suitable accommodations can be made.
Recognizing, however, that your suspension is a crossfire casualty, I will at least attempt to answer your issue of why you were expected to provide such a reference. Quite simply, Angrybellsprout brought the issue of references to the fore by refusing to support particularly contentious and inflammatory assertions, which he attempted to qualify as "common knowledge". He was specifically warned on this count, and post #145, to which you responded, was another attempt to evade his responsibility to support his assertions. Mountainhare, who responded to a warning given to ABS regarding references by demanding references of others (which demand, incidentally, was obliged) echoed your skewed assertion in support of Angrybellsprout. Perhaps you resent the obligation Mountainhare's demand brought upon you, but if you expect moderators to be fair around here, well, that includes you, too.
As with your associate, I would remind that the rules are more than simply something you pay lip service to in order to come through the door. If they are too much to ask once you're in, we can certainly alleviate you of the burden of defiance.