Mods Gone Wild

Status
Not open for further replies.
WillNever said:
Lucy: most members of the group have gone on record agreeing with my statement in this thread. If you feel that my words do not represent you, then you are im the minority. You are allowing your longstanding dislike of SAM affect your thinking. :cool:
Click to expand...

Dislike? Hardly.

I don't mind being in the minority. I'm not a group follower, I make up my own opinions and I'm not in the habit of having other's speak for me.:cool:

As a matter of fact I make it a point of speaking my own opinion regardless of 'group think'.

You know it has something to do with 'free thought and opinion':rolleyes:
 
Lucysnow said:
You know it has something to do with 'free thought and opinion':rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Lucysnow: "free thought and opinion" does not mean "everyone must always be disagreeing with each other on all topics all of the time," nor does it mean "no one may form a consensus on any topic whatsoever."

I can tell you what freedom of thought DOES mean however. It means (among other things) not posting a disagreeing viewpoint against somebody based PURELY on your personal dislike for that person, when that dislike is irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. Right now, you are flying against that ideal due to your history of argumentation with SAM, who between you there is a history of the use of the ignore function. That doesn't bode so well. :cool:
 
Lucysnow said:
Dislike? Hardly.
Click to expand...

Good pont... which reminds me of how black people was treeted in my 'ol Kentuky home when i was a kid... an they wasnt "Disliked" ether... well... as long as they knew ther place an stayed in it... which included not goin inside a resturant to eat.!!!

Ther was 1 black guy... "Jack"... who woud somtims stan outside my gran-maws resturant aroun dinner time... an when we noticed him we woud take him a plate-lunch an he woud eat it out on the sidewalk while standin up... she woud invite him in but he never woud (he knew his place)... he woud jus slide the plate inside the door when he was done... yep... Jack wasnt Disliked ether.!!!
 
WillNever said:
Lucysnow: "free thought and opinion" does not mean "everyone must always be disagreeing with each other on all topics all of the time," nor does it mean "no one may form a consensus on any topic whatsoever."

I can tell you what freedom of thought DOES mean however. It means (among other things) not posting a disagreeing viewpoint against somebody based PURELY on your personal dislike for that person, when that dislike is irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. Right now, you are flying against that ideal due to your history of argumentation with SAM, who between you there is a history of the use of the ignore function. That doesn't bode so well. :cool:
Click to expand...

Irony!:rolleyes:

So you are telling her that her free thoughts are wrong because you don't agree with what she is saying because you feel her dislike of Sam clouds her judgement.. In other words, it is only a 'free thought' if it agrees with what you think and feel..

Kind of goes against the very definition of 'free thought' does it not?

Is it any less of a 'free thought or opinion' if Lucy has a supposed history with Sam?

Are you, in your attempt to have free opinions on this forum without censure, attempting to stifle the opinion of another because you don't agree with what youa re saying? Doesn't that go against what you are going on about in this thread?
 
WillNever said:
Lucysnow: "free thought and opinion" does not mean "everyone must always be disagreeing with each other on all topics all of the time," nor does it mean "no one may form a consensus on any topic whatsoever."

I can tell you what freedom of thought DOES mean however. It means (among other things) not posting a disagreeing viewpoint against somebody based PURELY on your personal dislike for that person, when that dislike is irrelevant to the actual topic at hand. Right now, you are flying against that ideal due to your history of argumentation with SAM, who between you there is a history of the use of the ignore function. That doesn't bode so well. :cool:
Click to expand...

When did I even mention Sam? I said simply wrote that being the person who started High Society doesn't give you the right to speak for me. So it was you I am not aligned to and disagree with.

If you check this thread you won't see reference to Sam anywhere. You are not my 'leader' just because you started a stupid group.

GET IT?

This mob rule shit is bullshit and totally not in line with my character. So if you think you can somehow brow beat me into accepting your stupid rant you are quite mistaken. I suggest you look elsewhere if its a sycophant you want.
 
Last edited:
cluelusshusbund said:
Good pont... which reminds me of how black people was treeted in my 'ol Kentuky home when i was a kid... an they wasnt "Disliked" ether... well... as long as they knew ther place an stayed in it... which included not goin inside a resturant to eat.!!!

Ther was 1 black guy... "Jack"... who woud somtims stan outside my gran-maws resturant aroun dinner time... an when we noticed him we woud take him a plate-lunch an he woud eat it out on the sidewalk while standin up... she woud invite him in but he never woud (he knew his place)... he woud jus slide the plate inside the door when he was done... yep... Jack wasnt Disliked ether.!!!
Click to expand...

You're just a following fool and can just fuck off for all I care.

You don't even know how to comprehend a post you wanker.
 
Bells said:
So you are telling her that her free thoughts are wrong because you don't agree with what she is saying because you feel her dislike of Sam clouds her judgement.. In other words, it is only a 'free thought' if it agrees with what you think and feel..
Click to expand...

I think I have not said that, sorry. :cool:
Lucysnow said:
When did I even mention Sam? I said simply wrote that being the person who started High Society doesn't give you the right to speak for me. So it was you I am not aligned to and disagree with.

If you check this thread you won't see reference to Sam anywhere. You are not my 'leader' just because you started a stupid group.

GET IT?

This mob rule shit is bullshit and totally not in line with my character. So if you think you can somehow brow beat me into accepting your stupid rant you are quite mistaken. I suggest you look elsewhere if its a sycophant you want.
Click to expand...
Then you should not have requested to join, Lucysnow. However, this group is not about "mob rule" or any of other idiotic things you are imagining. The handful of people in the group does not constitute a "mob" and our way of thinking is un-moblike. We are highly calm and highly rational -- unlike the emotional state you are exhibiting now. As well, my statement does not require you recognize me as your leader. However, if you feel that the group statement does not represent you, then that's okay: it simply means you aren't truly in the group and probably never were. That actually bodes well for the rest of us, because that means we are divorced from whatever your self-serving goals appear to be.

This thread is predominantly about SAM, the official statement by me addresses SAM, so I'm not sure why you are here pretending SAM isn't related. I can see that that you are getting uncharacteristically angry (all caps expressions, cursing) in this temporary little "me" moment you are having so I will leave you to your musings for now. :cool:
 
Last edited:
I didn't request you invited me. And my remarks were not about Sam so stop pretending as if they were. There was a request from James for the members of the group to state whether they have all signed aboard this thing you're on about. I said my piece and stand by it. Whatever little gripe you have with the admin has nothing to do with me. And as I have said before I don't allow other people to state opinions on my behalf. Period.
 
Lucysnow said:
I didn't request you invited me. And my remarks were not about Sam so stop pretending as if they were. There was a request from James for the members of the group to state whether they have all signed aboard this thing you're on about. I said my piece and stand by it. Whatever little gripe you have with the admin has nothing to do with me. And as I have said before I don't allow other people to state opinions on my behalf. Period.
Click to expand...
lucytheliar.jpg


I rest my case. :cool:
 
Yeah after you sent the request. I didn't know how to join after the request, couldn't find the button. This is something that I think the admin can prove on my behalf since you are so fucking dishonest.

Are you going to lie and pretend you didn't request me for membership?
 
I joined what was supposed to be a group of 'free thinkers' where there was supposed to be intelligent discussion, not a group of whiners. No you saying I requested and not saying you invited me first is dishonest.
 
WillNever said:
However, this group is not about "mob rule" or any of other idiotic things you are imagining.
Click to expand...

Oh?

WillNever said:
Is there a thread on Sciforums where you would like your fellow members in High Society to weigh in..? Post the title and link in this discussion thread, and we'll see what we can do.

As well as posting the title and link, post here both a summary of your stance in the thread and a summary of the stance you are arguing against.

http://www.sciforums.com/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=93
Click to expand...

WillNever said:
ALERT. ALERT. ALERT. Due to unfair moderation practices, I urge EVERY member of High Society to take part in the thread "Mods Gone Wild" located in SF Open Government forum. In that thread, a discussion is taking place on the alleged unfair moderation practices of James R and some other forum-fatigued moderators who are letting their jaded, cynical, and prejudicial expectations of users of the board to dictate their acts of moderation. I view this as a serious violation of High Societal values and therefore, I believe it would be UNPRINCIPLED of us to not decry these acts in a large, bold voice.

I REPEAT: I would like EVERY member of High Society to take up this call to arms and voice their annoyance, outrage, or violation of values in that thread. Whether you agree with the personal views of the involved parties (SAM, Tiassa, etc) or not, this is one of those times where we must rise to the call in UNISON and show these bums that we are not going to be bullied.

http://www.sciforums.com/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=93&pp=10&page=2
Click to expand...

Che, is that you?

The handful of people in the group does not constitute a "mob" and our way of thinking is un-moblike.
Click to expand...
So your "call to arms" to "every member" is what exactly?

We are highly calm and highly rational -- unlike the emotional state you are exhibiting now.
Click to expand...
I laughed reading this. And then laughed some more when I read through the posts in said group.

As well, my statement require you recognize me as your leader.
Click to expand...
I am laughing even more now..

However, if you feel that the group statement does not represent you, then that's okay:
Click to expand...
So you have the approval of the other members that you do speak for them?

I defer to the words of Tiassa at this point:

"As far as I can tell, the point of the group is for some people to feel as if they are better than others. But, in regard to the question at hand, there isn't much suggesting the membership of that group had anything to do with the "official" statement. Or, to be more accurate, I don't see anything suggesting the membership of that group had anything to do with it."

Tiassa
​


Another member who is saying that you don't speak for them. So tell me, when you made the "official" statement on behalf of the group, did you get the consent of all your members, to make such a statement on their behalf? That so called official statement that you made, you worded it in such a way as to indicate that you represented the 'society' as a whole. So are you the official representative and did they all agree to you speaking out on their behalf? Thus far, it would seem that you made the statement based on your own personal feelings and dragged the rest in with you for good measure, without their knowledge or consent. However..

it simply means you aren't truly in the group and probably never were.
Click to expand...
So if they do not abide by your feelings and your opinions, or do not agree to have you speak on their behalf, they are not 'truly in the group'? What is this? Sciforums Survivor?

Who will be voted off next, I wonder?

That actually bodes well for the rest of us, because that means we are divorced from whatever your self-serving goals appear to be.
Click to expand...
Who is this "we" and "us" of which you speak? And do they all accept and agree to have you as their public mouthpiece on all issues in this forum?

Tell me, are you speaking for the "we" and "us" in all the posts you make? Do you represent the group when you make such statements? Or just yourself?
 
Last edited:
Lucysnow said:
You're just a following fool and can just fuck off for all I care.

You don't even know how to comprehend a post you wanker.
Click to expand...

Now now Lucysnow... clam down an read these words of somone you admire:::

"Its an internet community, a place where we come to spar over issues its not the bloody village in which we live. So relax..."

~Lucysnow
 
Are you sure about that, Will?

WillNever said:

I rest my case. :cool:
Click to expand...

You know, Will, in the image you provided, the title of the message is, "Re: Lucy". If Lucy goes back and shows us the record of the message(s) that came before that—because "Re:" is the default reply title—what will that original message show?

In other words, is Lucy correct?

"Yeah after you sent the request. I didn't know how to join after the request, couldn't find the button. This is something that I think the admin can prove on my behalf since you are so fucking dishonest.

Are you going to lie and pretend you didn't request me for membership?"​

I mean, lying about a member? That wouldn't be very ... uh ... "high society" of you, now, would it?

Then again, maybe it would.

In other words, it may not be time to rest your case.
 
Tiassa said:
You know, Will, in the image you provided, the title of the message is, "Re: Lucy". If Lucy goes back and shows us the record of the message(s) that came before that—because "Re:" is the default reply title—what will that original message show?
Click to expand...

My inbox is as so:
inbox.jpg

The subject title is "Lucy" written originally by Lucysnow. Opening the message brings up the "re:" because it opens a reply box automatically. Thanks for stopping by. :cool:
 
So you're saying Lucy lied?

WillNever said:

The subject title is "Lucy" written originally by Lucysnow. Opening the message brings up the "re:" because it opens a reply box automatically. Thanks for stopping by. :cool:
Click to expand...

Very well. Are you, then, claiming that Lucy contacted you unsolicited? Are you saying that she is lied when she wrote,

"Yeah after you sent the request. I didn't know how to join after the request, couldn't find the button. This is something that I think the admin can prove on my behalf since you are so fucking dishonest.

Are you going to lie and pretend you didn't request me for membership?"​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top