Holocaust Industry = Hate Speech?

[ElectricFetus]

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

Others can do that for them, scientist are not the only ones allowed to fight for science.

Its a discussion forum, not a school.

So you agree with me about this not being a legitimate crusade and a general means of jerking off?

Agreed, I don't need to eat James cooking, but I missed the part in the FAQ where it said it was his.

Rule of the internet #9: "There are no real rules about moderation — enjoy your ban."

Its his forum, he can do what ever he wants with it, that fact does not need to be stated anywhere it should just be known.

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.

I think he has maintained his ideals of banishing only the most offensive, though of course banishing has nothing to do with encouraging objectivity, freethinking and intellectualism, banishing for every small rule infraction for example will bring none of that, its like trying to us a hammer to fix a computer, he needs to implement more tools if he wants to improve this 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.

Yeah that why you are permabanned over a year ago, oh wait...

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.

If there ever was a cry for "I need my own forum" that would be it.

And nah, I wouldn't banish you

Your on!

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

No its not, I'm not in good favor with the moderation here either, but you only notice your own plight and think the world is against you and you alone, if only you could run things you would show them, yep grade A forum administrator material! Not grade B like James that try despite them selves to hold to concepts of fairness and all.

 

[S.A.M.]

No its not, I'm not in good favor with the moderation here either, but you only notice your own plight and think the world is against you and you alone, if only you could run things you would show them, yep grade A forum administrator material! Not grade B like James that try despite them selves to hold to concepts of fairness and all.

Dear well cooked fetus, I did not imply that a badge of honour was how you are perceived by the moderation.

And no I don't see my "plight" alone [I don't have a plight, just a lack of patience].

I think he has maintained his ideals of banishing only the most offensive, though of course banishing has nothing to do with encouraging objectivity, freethinking and intellectualism, banishing for every small rule infraction for example will bring none of that, its like trying to us a hammer to fix a computer, he needs to implement more tools if he wants to improve this forum.

But he is improving this forum. Its becoming exactly like him.

 

[scifes]

Then scholarly minded people should hope the ADL expands it's territory. The history deniers are all over the place. If it isn't the holocaust, it's evolution, or climate science, or geology.

or religion, or jesus, or mohammad...

Permabanning someone based on their views is not kosher.

This is a very grisly move by the moderators to impose sanctity onto an event based on their cultural perspective of it, while not applying that same imposition on other similar events throughout world history that they happen to not culturally identify with.

The people permabanning should themselves be banned.

seconded.

SAM has taken to actually lying about statements other members have made - inventing positions for them that they do not hold and claiming that they have stated they hold them. She did this with quadraphonics and she has done it in relation to me.

Now, I have been very tolerant of SAM's bigotry, disingenuity, and general trolling, but when it comes to telling lies, particularly about me, I say enough is enough.

the underlined might be a first..
but the bolded part definitly is not..

SAM dishonestly claims that a distinction is made regarding images of violence posted on sciforums - particularly images of dead people who have suffered violent deaths from things such as gunshot wounds.

and she is right.
i.e honest.
looki here:

Our policy here is to allow the posting of links to such images, with text warning that the image is graphic. Where such images are embedded in posts, those posts are edited by moderators to change the images to links, in accordance with policy, when the moderators become aware of their existence.

in orleander's thread about the child molester in KSA who got beheaded, i posted pics.
they were not allowed to be posted..
no links to them were offered.
they were deleted.
yet i saw once a pic enmos posted about aerosols which explode in your face when you turn them into a flamethrower..
the pic wasn't... pretty.
and it was posted.. no links.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Dear well cooked fetus, I did not imply that a badge of honour was how you are perceived by the moderation.

Then I'm not a "badge of honor at sciforums" as what the moderators and Admins want here, not you, is what consider honorable here.

And no I don't see my "plight" alone [I don't have a plight, just a lack of patience].

Your right, and your missing a lot more than patience.

But he is improving this forum. Its becoming exactly like him.

I would think he wants members and a forum that more like him: multipolar and able to debate a wide range of topics instead of flaming just one group of issues sadly he gets more and more members like you that just do the latter, so no the forum become something more like scum then resembling any person. Don't worry someday the forum will improve, cycle back, either due to policy changes or simple time and random events.

 

[S.A.M.]

Don't worry someday the forum will improve, cycle back, either due to policy changes or simple time and random events.

One can hope.

 

[ElectricFetus]

One can hope.

Good bye :bawl:

 

[S.A.M.]

Bye :thankyou:

 

[countezero]

Please, go already... Enough with the pages of leave-taking.

 

[S.A.M.]

Please, go already... Enough with the pages of leave-taking.

Weren't you permanently banned last week? How did you come back?

 

[parmalee]

I think he has maintained his ideals of banishing only the most offensive, though of course banishing has nothing to do with encouraging objectivity, freethinking and intellectualism, banishing for every small rule infraction for example will bring none of that, its like trying to us a hammer to fix a computer, he needs to implement more tools if he wants to improve this forum.

evidence? and can you define what exactly you mean by "offensive" here?

you see, it's just not the way that i see it.





oh, nevermind--this is what you really meant:

Its his forum, he can do what ever he wants with it, that fact does not need to be stated anywhere it should just be known.

sciforums, indeed.

 

[Randwolf]

Perhaps I frequent this forum for different reasons than most, but I would like to briefly state my piece.

There are many here that appear to be stupid, uninformed, childish, bigoted, etc.

Nonetheless, that very fact is what makes this forum appealing, at least to me. I do not agree with some, or even most, of what SAM espouses, nor the methods she uses to express those opinions.

However, as we settle into the "zero tolerance" policy and learn to cope with the "new philosophy" of SF, it seems that we face danger.

Left unchecked, this community will become completely homogeneous and totally devoid of debate, save the in the driest academic sense.

Granted, I have only been here a year or so, but I have witnessed great changes during that year, some for the the better, some not so much...

Let us not allow these forums to become nothing more than a sounding board for those that already agree in principle, a place where people do little more than say "Amen", "What he said" - it takes all the spice out, leaving a bland broth of little more than filtered water.

Rather let us encourage our members to stand up and speak their opinions, rather they be composed of the controversial or the mundane. Handle individual problems on an individual basis. While this thread may be pointed to as an example of doing just that, it would seem that there are larger consequences in play - slippery slope, and all that.

In closing, I come here for entertainment. Remember, when the delusions of grandeur are all boiled away, we are left with an internet forum. An internet forum people! Shall we banish someone for life because they promote their own opinions? Even if such promotion is done with vehemence? Now if an individual is guilty of misrepresenting, misattributing, plagiarizing, stalking or even deliberately lying, perhaps a permaban is in order.

On the other hand, if there is any ambiguity, or reasonable doubt as to the facts of the situation, should not the benefit of the doubt be extended to the alleged perpetrator?

I realize that the case at hand is like an iceberg - only the tip is showing here, in this particular thread. Nonetheless, should not each individual act be judged on its own merit, as opposed to relying on feuds going back years?

Bottom line, even though I don't agree with many posters here, I grieve to see a colorful personality disappear from our midst. Less color, less spice - less entertainment for me. Can't have that...

Of course, since I am the supreme being of the universe, this is all that matters!

 

[parmalee]

Let us not allow these forums to become nothing more than a sounding board for those that already agree in principle, a place where people do little more than say "Amen", "What he said" - it takes all the spice out, leaving a bland broth of little more than filtered water.

Rather let us encourage our members to stand up and speak their opinions, rather they be composed of the controversial or the mundane. Handle individual problems on an individual basis. While this thread may be pointed to as an example of doing just that, it would seem that there are larger consequences in play - slippery slope, and all that.

In closing, I come here for entertainment.

i am very much in agreement with most of your post (only a minor quibble, which is of little pertinence) AND like you, i come here for entertainment--although, to be clear, by "entertainment" i do not mean (and i believe that you do not, either) simply "shits and giggles." but as to the the bolded portion above: because of a very apparent trend in this direction, the "entertainment" is becoming merely "shits and giggles," frankly. (bland: yes, but still funny).

and as to "holocaust industry=hate speech": pffffft. absolutely hysterical. i've got to wonder if someone here is also in the habit of burning books.

 

[S.A.M.]

and as to "holocaust industry=hate speech": pffffft. absolutely hysterical. i've got to wonder if someone here is also in the habit of burning books.

Thats too much of a stretch. We are talking about a person who has a position on the Israel Palestine issue and does not know of Palestinian refugees.

 

[parmalee]

Thats too much of a stretch. We are talking about a person who has a position on the Israel Palestine issue and does not know of Palestinian refugees.

watch it, SAM! now you're trying to get me into trouble too.

note my very carefully selected language (oh, i was ever so cautious!):

and as to "holocaust industry=hate speech": pffffft. absolutely hysterical. i've got to wonder if someone here is also in the habit of burning books.

first, i am only speculating--i am making no claims.

second, i said "someone"--one can infer from that whatever one wishes; but--in spite of the sentence which directly preceded it --methinks the implication somewhat ambiguous.

 

[Cowboy]

My academic citation for the term used:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry

I'm familiar with Mr. Finkelstein's book and I'd like to point out (if it hasn't been pointed out already) that the book doesn't deny that the Holocaust occurred.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm familiar with Mr. Finkelstein's book and I'd like to point out (if it hasn't been pointed out already) that the book doesn't deny that the Holocaust occurred.

Why would anyone think so? Both of Professor Finkelsteins parents are holocaust survivors. He could hardly be so ignorant as to claim it did not happen

watch it, SAM! now you're trying to get me into trouble too.

note my very carefully selected language (oh, i was ever so cautious!):



first, i am only speculating--i am making no claims.

second, i said "someone"--one can infer from that whatever one wishes; but--in spite of the sentence which directly preceded it --methinks the implication somewhat ambiguous.

Sorry just ignore me, force of habit.

 

[Cowboy]

Why would anyone think so? Both of Professor Finkelsteins parents are holocaust survivors. He could hardly be so ignorant as to claim it did not happen

I was pointing that out in case other members made the assumption, since the reference was used in a thread about a Holocaust denier.

 

[countezero]

Weren't you permanently banned last week? How did you come back?

I thought you were leaving, not spending your entire day on the forum talking about it?

 

[S.A.M.]

I thought you were leaving, not spending your entire day on the forum talking about it?

You thought wrong obviously.

Meanwhile do tell me why your permaban was reversed?

I admit I was surprised that string had permabanned you. But I was even more surprised that Plazma reversed it.

 

[kira]

I thought you were leaving, not spending your entire day on the forum talking about it?

Gee, can't wait few more hours, eh? :bugeye: James already said that he makes a poll to see other mods' opinion, in which if the vote results:
> 2/3: she'll be permanently banned
< 2/3: she'll be banned for 1 month

Some hours ago I've already PM SAM that if she is banned, I'll also leave. Not because I disagree with James' decision, but because I'd be sad posting here after SAM permanently banned. However, I guess few pages ago SAM already appologizes, so I hope James will drop it. If not, just wait some more hours, why don't you :bugeye: Otherwise, just put her on ignore :shrug: