Holocaust Industry = Hate Speech?

[James R]

SAM:

I am sorry that you are so bound up in your bigotry that you will not offer a simple apology when you are so clearly in the wrong.

I am sad that you are choosing to leave sciforums forever because your ego is too big to offer a simple apology for a relatively minor offence.

But so be it. You have approximately 19 hours left.

 

[WillNever]

She just told you if you feel she is wrong (which you say you do) then she apologizes.

Why are you making it harder for her?

 

[lightgigantic]

A man, a woman, and several sick cats.
A war of accusation and apology.

Meets all the prerequisites for a rom com.

The basic plot of a romantic comedy is that two protagonists, usually a man and a woman, meet, part ways due to an argument or other obstacle, then ultimately reunite. Sometimes the two protagonists meet and become involved initially, then must confront challenges to their union. Sometimes the two protagonists are hesitant to become romantically involved because they believe that they do not like each other, because one of them already has a partner, or because of social pressures. However, the screenwriters leave clues that suggest that the characters are, in fact, attracted to each other and that they would be a good love match. The protagonists often separate or seek time apart to sort out their feelings or deal with the external obstacles to their being together.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

She just told you if you feel she is wrong (which you say you do) then she apologizes.

Why are you making it harder for her?

That was not an apology. If she were going to apologize she would have done so through pm. That was more of a 'I don't know what you are on about but if it will make you feel better I apologize' :shrug: In short she is playing ignorant.

 

[WillNever]

A man, a woman, and several sick cats.
A war of accusation and apology.

Meets all the prerequisites for a rom com.

Like Pride and Prejudice. This is remarkably similar, in some ways.

 

[WillNever]

That was not an apology. If she were going to apologize she would have done so through pm. That was more of a 'I don't know what you are on about but if it will make you feel better I apologize' :shrug: In short she is playing ignorant.

Hmm, I didn't view it that way. You paraphrasing her is dangerously close to mispresentation... which is dangerously close to libel.

More apologies are in order.

Kidding.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Hmm, I didn't view it that way. You paraphrasing her is dangerously close to mispresentation... which is dangerously close to libel.

More apologies are in order.

Kidding.

What? Apologize to her for what she does to others on a regular basis? I don't think so. James dealt with her privately she chose to go about making an entire thread about what is essentially between the both of them. If she were REALLY apologetic the post would have indicated as such but have done so privately. She's just spreading her urine about like a cat marking territory.

 

[James R]

I am sorry. I had to leave for a while and I didn't see SAM's post #60.

Please read through the thread and if you feel, I have been mistaken or wrong in my attribution, accept my sincere apologies.

It is not clear to me whether this is intended as the apology I requested or not.

Any apology that starts "If I have offended..." or "If you feel that I have wronged you..." is not a true apology. Clearly you have given offence to somebody who demands an apology from you.

A true apology involves admitting that what you did was unacceptable. The above amounts to a slap in the face: "Well, I know that you think what I did was wrong, but since I don't think there was anything wrong with it, I'll give you a two-faced apology-that-doesn't-really-apologise in order to make life easier for myself, then go on with business as usual."

This is not to put off any banning, I am quite honestly puzzled by what you intend here.

How could I be any clearer? You insulted me by stating falsely that I had made statements that I never made. I want you to admit that what you did was wrong and to apologise. What's unclear about that?

So, to be clear and to avoid a misunderstanding with potentially heavy consequences, please clarify your post, SAM. Thankyou.

 

[Brian Foley]

Originally Posted by James R
Dear S.A.M.,

You have received a warning at SciForums.com.

Reason:
-------
Hate speech

Holocaust industry.

How does "Holocaust industry" constitute Hate Speech? Ridiculous when the term itself was coined by a Jewish Academic.

 

[James R]

Brian:

Read the entire post. I am really not interesting in debating this topic with you.

 

[countezero]

She just told you if you feel she is wrong (which you say you do) then she apologizes.

Why are you making it harder for her?

Why are you sticking up for her? The lengths some people will go on this site to pretend Sam has a useful purpose continues to baffle me.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am sorry. I had to leave for a while and I didn't see SAM's post #60.



It is not clear to me whether this is intended as the apology I requested or not.

Any apology that starts "If I have offended..." or "If you feel that I have wronged you..." is not a true apology. Clearly you have given offence to somebody who demands an apology from you.

A true apology involves admitting that what you did was unacceptable. The above amounts to a slap in the face: "Well, I know that you think what I did was wrong, but since I don't think there was anything wrong with it, I'll give you a two-faced apology-that-doesn't-really-apologise in order to make life easier for myself, then go on with business as usual."



How could I be any clearer? You insulted me by stating falsely that I had made statements that I never made. I want you to admit that what you did was wrong and to apologise. What's unclear about that?

So, to be clear and to avoid a misunderstanding with potentially heavy consequences, please clarify your post, SAM. Thankyou.

Sure I'll clarify. It would appear that when you attributed someone elses words to me you felt that by "selectively quoting" them, I owned their views. You also accused me of "quote of mining" and when I questioned how I had misrepresented the views of the author, you said that if I were using "that" definition" of "quote mining" [apparently there is some other, with a widely different meaning, that is not apparent here] then I should reassign your words to read "selectively quoting"

Then you said:

In case you misunderstood my "of course", I meant "Of course I hold the same opinion of that piece, no matter whether it was written by you, by a left-wing American, by an Israeli General, by Adolph Hitler or by Mahatma Gandhi." To do otherwise would be to put personality above what was written.

Now I am no longer certain exactly what your words mean? Are you claiming that if I "selectively quoted" [whatever that means] Gandhi's antiwar stance, I would hence own Gandhi's antiwar views which would then make both Gandhi and I bigoted for having only a view that supported the victims and disregarding the perpetrators? It is a very odd position indeed that in order to be "objective" I must support [if I am understanding you in this matter] both the victim and the perpetrator. IOW, if I "selectively quote" a position which is anti war when it comes to the Holocaust by quoting the views of an antiwar German who sympathises with the plight of the Jews, we are both [the German and I] guilty of bigotry. At least that is what it sounds like.

So since Gandhi, the antiwar American and I have put ourselves in the untenable position of being anti war this makes us anti-war propagandists bigoted in favour of the victims. I consider this position quite acceptable to me, I am bigoted against war and you clearly consider me bigoted for "selectively quoting" a position which only supports my view.

Well yeah, if I am anti-slavery I will "selectively quote" only antislavery positions, if I am anti-racism, I will "selectibely quote" anti-racism positions.

How could it be otherwise? And if you believe this makes me and whoever I "selectively quote" equally culpable as "bigots" then I am unsure how this is libel.

You claimed also:

And just to be clear (not that it is relevant), I myself sympathise with innocent civilians who are bombed in a war. For me, it doesn't matter whether they are bombed by Pakistan, Israel, India or the US. For you, it is obviously central to your self identity.

now if you are not in the same "bigoted" boat as I, Gandhi and the anti war American, you would also simultaneously support Obamas decision on the bombing itself, while sympathising with the victims. If this is your position ie pro-war but sympathising with the victims, I am unsure why you think this "objective" position is something I should support or admire. And if I did, would I be "selectively quoting" your position to ally with mine?

Your position seems to be exactly what I said it was. Why do we have to support for example the Nazis to be "objective" about the Jews? Or Obama to be "objective" about the Pakistanis? Or slavers to be "objective" about slaves?

Why can't we [the anti-war American and I, who are apparently indistinguishable in our positions] simply be antiwar and support the victims? Why is this a "selective quote" what kind of strange proposition is this?


Basically you make no sense at all so I am not clear what the libel is. You seem to be offended because I clearly stated your position which you have said over and over in this thread. But it now appears that you do not use standard definitions of terms so it may mean something else entirely.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Posting in an Epic Thread

Yeah I couldn't help my self. Ever since SAM freaked out and was demoted she has not posted a new thread on the biology forum, the place were she provided the calm unbiased discussion and brought goodness to these forums, and instead has devoted her self completely to arguing about Palestinians, how much the evil west hates her and muslims, ect, and generally causing flame wars. Yes she should have gotten banished the fact others have gotten banned for less is really a travesty, at the very lest forcibly breaking her addiction would do her good (or cause her to become even more fundamentalist) heck I can go on multiple year hiatus for far far less, watch me go, bye.

 

[S.A.M.]

It was made quite clear to me that us theist freaks have no place on a science forum. So yeah I quit posting science threads, I only responded to the ones already there.

I think I stated this position somewhere when I decided on this, but I am too lazy to search.

 

[ElectricFetus]

It was made quite clear to me that us theist freaks have no place on a science forum. So yeah I quit posting science threads, I only responded to the ones already there.

I think I stated this position somewhere when I decided on this, but I am too lazy to search.

There are other theist here, but when you pick a fight you can't claim victimhood. Come on SAM come with me just head towards the light, its time to move on.

 

[countezero]

The fact she's stretched her defense, if we can call it that, in the face of banning, into pages upon pages of rationalizations says all you need to know about her.

 

[S.A.M.]

There are other theist here, but when you pick a fight you can't clam victimhood. Come on SAM come with me just head towards the light, its time to move on.

Pick a fight? There are no "real" scientists here, there is a reason for that. There are probably three or four people who could understand the discussions in biology which we could have, as serious science lovers devoted to understanding the world through experimental study. But this is not a place encouraging to science lovers. More like the opposite, you have admin that lies and misrepresents, mods that are childish, biased and threatening, I'm not certain what the idea here is, but the fact that its become an atheist forum that is hostile to theists takes precedence over all other claims here. There are many ways in which this is manifest here and it has become essentially the place where James indulges himself by encouraging the echo of his own voice and denouncing all other as bigots who have issues or are a problem and on a crusade. He seems to have become increasingly devoted to this cause, abandoning all pretence at objectiivty and making strange claims and assertions which he does not consider necessary to substantiate with evidence. This thread is a case in point.

But, I am tired so I won't continue to whine. Suffice to say that I have no confidence in James as a person of integrity, so it makes little sense to continue posting in a place where he stalks me continually. Perhaps for a change he can stalk new posters and match their IP to mine, a practice I assure you, he excels at for other posters who he feels "do not belong" at sciforums. Its his personal domain now and too constrictive for any real thinking. See for example how he has attacked human rights activist Norman Finkelstein in this thread. Its beyond belief.

I do wish to thank all my friends for their support and especially those who remained objective inspite of strong philosophical disagreements with my positions. I won't name anyone, since it will taint them by association. You too fetus, you've been fun to debate with although we rarely crosses tracks in biology.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Pick a fight? There are no "real" scientists here, there is a reason for that. There are probably three or four people who could understand the discussions in biology which we could have, as serious science lovers devoted to understanding the world through experimental study.

I don't disagree with that, I long since gave up coming here for real scientific discussion, although that has nothing to do with picking a fight, jesus that a blatant red herring there SAM your truly losing your edge.

But this is not a place encouraging to science lovers. More like the opposite, you have admin that lies and misrepresents, mods that are childish, biased and threatening,

no, no, this has become something of a general enthusiast forums, which is not necessarily a bad thing, scientist are often seen as snubbing and esoteric assholes, cultivating a general interest in all things helps counter that image.

I'm not certain what the idea here is, but the fact that its become an atheist forum that is hostile to theists takes precedence over all other claims here. There are many ways in which this is manifest here and it has become essentially the place where James indulges himself by encouraging the echo of his own voice and denouncing all other as bigots who have issues or are a problem and on a crusade.

yeah, yeah, aaaah, crusade you say, arguing on the internet about issues that interest you is NOT a crusade, its more of a "time wasting" or "masturbation" than anything of worldly consequence like a crusade. Face it you been jerking it for thousands of post now, with no intention of learning, helping or imparting benefits to others, or at the very lest murdering others for what you consider holy (in literal definition of a crusade)

He seems to have become increasingly devoted to this cause, abandoning all pretence at objectiivty and making strange claims and assertions which he does not consider necessary to substantiate with evidence. This thread is a case in point.

Hey its James Cooking, if you don't like it you don't need to come here and eat it, why don't you go start you own forum, spuriousmonkey did it. You want to get control of your addiction (assuming you do): stop buying and start selling!

But, I am tired so I won't continue to whine. Suffice to say that I have no confidence in James as a person of integrity, so it makes little sense to continue posting in a place where he stalks me continually. Perhaps for a change he can stalk new posters and match their IP to mine, a practice I assure you, he excels at for other posters who he feels "do not belong" at sciforums. Its his personal domain now and too constrictive for any real thinking. See for example how he has attacked human rights activist Norman Finkelstein in this thread. Its beyond belief.

Yet your still yapping, perhaps out of egotistical self-righteousness? James has done so very much to hold his tongue the fact he broken down now is actually something to admire, I seriously doubt you would give your opponents such opportunities for years on end on your forum.

I do wish to thank all my friends for their support and especially those who remained objective inspite of strong philosophical disagreements with my positions. I won't name anyone, since it will taint them by association. You too fetus, you've been fun to debate with although we rarely crosses tracks in biology.

If you were not being banished you would be back in 48 hours, you know it, I know it we all know it. I really do hope you start your own forum, I would come, if only to test how long it would take for you to banishment me

 

[S.A.M.]

I don't disagree with that, I long since gave up coming here for real scientific discussion.

no, no, this has become something of a general enthusiast forums, which is not necessarily a bad thing, scientist are often seen as snubbing and esoteric assholes, cultivating a general interest in all things helps counter that image.

I would agree if there were any scientists here doing that .

yeah, yeah, aaaah, crusade you say, arguing on the internet about issues that interest you is NOT a crusade, its more of a "time wasting" or "masturbation" than anything of worldly consequence like a crusade. Face it you been jerking it for thousands of post now, with not intention of learning, helping or imparting benefits to others.

Its a discussion forum, not a school.

Hey its James Cooking, if you don't like it you don't need to come here and eat it, why don't you go start you own forum, spuriousmonkey did it. You want to get control of your addiction (assuming you do): stop buying and start selling!

Agreed, I don't need to eat James cooking, but I missed the part in the FAQ where it said it was his. Frankly, I had better hopes from Plazma he showed some promise when he started here and James looked very different when he was popping in once a day to randomly ban a poster here and there for hate speech, antisemitism or racism. Over time he has banned most of the posters who were objective though, so it would seem that the aim is not to retain objectivity, but to encourage stupidity.

Yet your still yapping, perhaps out of egotistical self righteousness? James has done so very much to hold his tongue the fact he broken down now is actually something to admire, I seriously doubt you would give your opponents such opportunities on your forum.

Maybe we don't include you in all our squabbles, James is anything but "quiet" and he hasn't broken down, he's been at it for over a year at least.

If you were not being banished you would be back in 48 hours, you know it, I know it we all know it. I really do hope you start your own forum, I would come, if only to test how long it would take for you to banishment me :

Of course, I don't come here to chat with James, I come here to debate with posters I like or those who challenge my POV. He's just in the way.

And nah, I wouldn't banish you, I don't believe I've ever complained about you either. I think you're funny and a bit screwy, but then, thats a badge of honour at sciforums.

edit: [note to admin] oh when I am banned, I'd like my social groups to be handed over to kira - I think she's the best person to decide what to do about them.

 

[scifes]

wow, someone turned out to be a spoiled child with a rich daddy.. guess it explains sam being all cool and mature all of a sudden..