Tiassa ought to stop telling lies and making false accusations. Hateful little man.
Well, think of it this way; after I asked if I could quote you, you have refused to respond, splintered the thread, and referred to what you think I can't use. You don't really have much confidence in your words and actions, do you, James?
I have written more than enough - even in the linked threads alone, never mind all the ones that Tiassa can't use as fodder for his confected lies - to make it clear what my position is on all the topics Tiassa has raised ....
.... Meanwhile, sciforums contains a searchable archive of my thoughts and opinions on sciforums that now stretches back 20+ years.
You would leave others to do your work for you. But even as you say words like "lies", there are examples on record that you refuse to answer. So it is left to wonder if you're just going to sit there and seethe and try to hide inside your indignance.
Consider: In an issue pertaining to how you moderate a thread, you are
reminded↑ of a prior episode, skip over it in
two↑ posts↑ accusing lies and demanding evidence, are
given that information↑, yet you
still refuse to address that evidence.
It's not entirely unlike the time,
last month↗ when you quoted the links to something you had skipped over in order to complain, "Try to be specific, if you're going to make accusations", and demand, "why waste time like this, with a hide-and-seek game with post references? Why not just state how you think I misrepresented you?" And, well, that's the thing, I already had. And you
skipped↗ [url=http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3713686/]over↗ it only to come back and indignantly demand it.
There are a few jokes I might make about your twenty years here, especially about how that line is more of an excuse than anything useful, but there are a couple more useful points we might consider:
¿What have you learned in those twenty-plus years? And, sure, that is a question for a different thread on a more peaceful and amicable day.¹ More direct to our moment is the point that, for our members, part of the searchable archive of your, and my, twenty years, here, is not available to them; you shouldn't hide behind that.
If Tiassa was not a moderator, and I was moderating this thread, the thread would obviously be closed and cesspooled due to its content, regardless of who his target was.
It is a splinter thread, and you were, in fact, moderating the thread from which it came. The difference between what you say behind our closed door and what you present to the membership can sometimes become relevant. Like when you said, in our present public discussion:
I don't know what you're referring to. I very much doubt I screwed up "last time". If there was a last time.
It was only February, James. Memoranda #3474-3485. Attend the question of which post, your consideration of your shifting role, a passing note about infatuation, and the place of personal interest in our moderating decisions.
Meanwhile, it's like I said a couple years ago in one of our policy discussions,
if he's just another member, sure, I don't have to give a damn what James R says or thinks or does until, as with any number of our crackpots, it becomes too disruptive to not. But, as I said, what James says and does matters. Like your complaint that I don't moderate enough; compared to your policy outlook, there just isn't much to do. Should I have banned Liverani at the outset, for instance, because that outcome was pretty easy to see coming. What if it was the ranting incel, wow, that was five years ago; but, sure, what if I had thrown him out on the basis of what I described as a Petersonesque performance², because the only part of what came next that actually surprised me was how absolutely determined a performance he put on. But, do you know why I didn't? I would think it obvious, because we don't want to suppress political views, and, even more particularly, it wasn't so long after another Peterson episode in which the Administrator,
i.e., you, had made your particular opinion known. I shouldn't need to walk you through the history of the fact that you are an administrator. And, honestly, if I still don't know at what point I should have stopped answering Covid bullshit and just banned it, that's a harder decision according to the implications and effects of what I choose. Compared to what you do, that sort of thing might feel subtle, but after years of Administrative advice to the other, it sounds like you want me to flag more people than I have been. Perhaps you should come right out and say what it is you want.
Compared to your prior policy outlook, James, you are clearly attending a more active standard. If we're changing direction, that's fine, just say so. But I can reach back years, like Memorandum #2791, in order to remind that it's all
ad hoc, anyway. Or #3266, in re rational discourse as a pretense for suppression. One of the hard things about answering Dave in re
explanation and obfuscation↗ really is the point that while sandwich-board preachers and ufologists are, generally speaking, not high priorities compared to certain crackpottery I am expected to show deference, well, inasmuch as I'm supposed to give wide berth, that expectation cannot be arbitrary or customized or whatever; it is not appropriate to turn rules on and off according to personal aesthetics.
Anyway—
• One of the points I've always wondered about and has never found any real traction at Sciforums is the idea of argumentative or conceptual integrity. Does the argument agree with itself throughout? Can the argument be applied in a larger framework? Or, in a negative formulation: Does the argument conflict with itself in order to be true? Is the argument a one-time custom piece, or does it work in the larger framework involving the particular issue one examines.
• Look at the political views, such as we might call them, that coincide with ignorant bullying. That these are the arguments requiring special accommodation and exemption from rational discourse isn't surprising.
• Think of it like antithetical affirmative action: If bigotry has no rational support, then we are somehow obliged to make exceptions to our demand for rational argument lest we suppress a political view.
—those points are as true, today, as they were in 2018. Again, #3266, James; your response to the second of those points is extraordinary in its particular context, and the question you asked therein cannot remain so limited.
So, what is it that the Administrator needs me to do in order to help him stop banging on Sarkus about some make-believe standard of vested interest? Y'know, just for instance.
Or were you just trying out new words like "odious" and "diatribe"? You keep saying things like lies and accusations, but as the linked examples pile up, you just seethe indignantly. It's like I said about the Georgia question, there are parts when everyone out beyond the fourth wall has a chance to learn something about how these things go. But, clearly, you have other priorities.
____________________
Notes:
¹ I wasn't joking, James,
when I suggested↗ a teachable lesson in which everyone out beyond the fourth wall has a chance to learn something about how these things go.
²
see Memorandum #3211.
[/url]