Mods Gone Wild

[WillNever]

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.

Nay, I deny the significance of it. Lucysnow: if you felt that my original statement did not represent you, you should have said, in this thread, "This statement by the group does not represent my opinion, personally." Instead of doing that, you have tried to disrespect the group and myself in general in a very lengthy post followed by this even more lengthy discussion. That leads me to believe that your intentions in this thread are not noble... and that they probably never were from the moment you joined our group.

If you disagreed with the group's position, then you could have left. You didn't do that, however, which is how I know that you disagree with my positions purely for the sake of fueling your irrational dislike of SAM -- since that was what my post in this thread addressed. If you had read the group description, then you would know that we are supposed to avoid such pettiness. You have flown against that ideal, which is why I have removed you from the group.

 

[WillNever]

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?

Bells, the majority of the group has already gone on record as seconding my statement in this thread. However, this thread does not include "all issues in this forum" so you may want to rephrase your question.

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?

You seem to believe something is wrong with the post in that link. Care to expound..?

 

[Liebling]

chafing, noob?

/sneer

Pavlov would be proud of you, GusGus. So predictable it's boring.

/woof

This whole thread is like watching Kabuki Theater, only less music and more lols.

 

[Trippy]

Bells, the majority of the group has already gone on record as seconding my statement in this thread.

You've made this claim a couple of times now.

Do you consider silence to be agreement do you? It hardly counts as going on record, which is generally interpreted as meaning having made a public statement somewhere (statements behind closed doors generally don't count either).

As near as I can tell, you've got yourself...

Oh, and S.A.M (potentially) by default, as agreeing with your comments, and maybe Timmy, although he hasn't expressed an opinion on the matter that I can see (unless you include the comments made about JamesR, but that hardly counts as explicit support for your comments made on this thread).

I see you've booted LucySnow for dissent, but wait, I thought you were opposed to 'though police'. Isn't that just slightly contradictory?

So you claim to be speaking for a group that has gone on record as supporting your statements, where no such record exists, and you've kicked a member out for dissention, even though (save wading through this thread) only 1 in 4 members of your group have made noises that could be interpreted as supporting your statement and you claim "to celebrate free-thought, fluid opinion"?

Awesome.

 

[WillNever]

You've made this claim a couple of times now.

As near as I can tell, you've got yourself...

Oh, and S.A.M (potentially) by default, as agreeing with your comments, and maybe Timmy, although he hasn't expressed an opinion on the matter that I can see (unless you include the comments made about JamesR, but that hardly counts as explicit support for your comments made on this thread).

So you claim to be speaking for a group that has gone on record as supporting your statements, where no such record exists, and you've kicked a member out for dissention, even though (save wading through this thread) only 1 in 4 members of your group have made noises that could be interpreted as supporting your statement and you claim "to celebrate free-thought, fluid opinion"?

Seven fully initiated members have voiced their opinions in my favor, Trippy. You need to go back and thoroughly re-read ALL posts after page 9. I will wait until you do so.

 

[Trippy]

Seven fully initiated members have voiced their opinions in my favor, Trippy. You need to go back and thoroughly re-read ALL posts after page 9. I will wait until you do so.

Um. No thankyou.

I've got better things to do with my time, and I've already aknowledged this as a possibility :shrug:.

Besides which, YOU are the one making the claim, it's up to YOU to provide the evidence to support it (if what you say is true, then it should be a simple matter fo you to link to the posts, should it not?).

Not me.

 

[Trippy]

Besides which, claiming that you speak for the majority of a group that you censure dissenting voices from is farcical at best.

 

[WillNever]

Um. No thankyou.

I've got better things to do with my time, and I've already aknowledged this as a possibility :shrug:.

Besides which, YOU are the one making the claim, it's up to YOU to provide the evidence to support it (if what you say is true, then it should be a simple matter fo you to link to the posts, should it not?).

Not me.

The evidence is already before you, in this thread Trippy. I am not going to go back and quote what is already written by these people just for your sake. My claim is already established. I have SAM, cluless, visceral, norsefire, giambattista, strawdog, and myself in my favor here. At this point, it is for you who questions us to go back and verify our statements -- if verification is indeed what you seek. If it is not, then that means you are anklebiting and therefore our conversation ends here.

Besides which, claiming that you speak for the majority of a group that you censure dissenting voices from is farcical at best.

Nay, I censure disrespectful voices. Anyone in our group is free to dissent -- civilly, calmly, and respectfully.

 

[Tiassa]

Mini-Mod

And now we see the attraction of social groups: Mini-Mod.

 

[GeoffP]

Hush! You peasant!



Aren't you English or something the like?

*Imagines bad teeth and cockney accent*..

*Giggles*

Also Canuckoid. Silly Aussie.

*Imagines fending off crocodiles using poisonous snakes stuffed with Marmite*

*Giggles*

 

[GeoffP]

I think I have not said that, sorry.
Then you should not have requested to join, Lucysnow.

Curious: you also asked me to join, then no response. :shrug:

 

[Randwolf]

And now we see the attraction of social groups: Mini-Mod.

Just one question - how did you end up a member? It's just so, so, not Tiasssa like...

 

[WillNever]

And now we see the attraction of social groups: Mini-Mod.

Which is infinitely worse than actual forum moderators such as yourself:

 

[Trippy]

The evidence is already before you, in this thread Trippy. I am not going to go back and quote what is already written by these people just for your sake. My claim is already established. I have SAM, cluless, visceral, norsefire, giambattista, strawdog, and myself in my favor here. At this point, it is for you who questions us to go back and verify our statements -- if verification is indeed what you seek. If it is not, then that means you are anklebiting and therefore our conversation ends here.

So what you're saying is that you refuse to back your claim up?
I didn't ask you to quote anybody, I simply asked you to link to the posts, as I consider it unreasonable for you to expect me to go back through 152 posts, in search of 6 that you claim support your position.
Because I count 5, which at the time that the claim was made 6 (including you) out of 14 wouldn't even have been a plurality, let alone a majority.

I say 6, because I exclude Clueluss, because nowhere can I find him explicitly stating that he supports your statement, only evading JamesR's attempt at getting a straight answer out of him, and mocking JamesR's challenge, neither of which demonstrate support for your statement only contempt of JamesR's statement (don't go setting up a false dichotomy now).

Nay, I censure disrespectful voices. Anyone in our group is free to dissent -- civilly, calmly, and respectfully.

You of course being the ultimate purveyour of all things repsectfull, civil, and calm (so again, we come back to you censoring dissenting voices).

 

[Pinwheel]

haha!

 

[Liebling]

High Society... you really named the group High Society and expect people to think you were serious?

This is going to be a featured spot in The Onion, right?

Your comments are so rife with contradiction and posturing it makes it laughable. If you could remove your ego for one second, and reread your statements of intent vs. your actual responses you might find yourself laughing as much as we are at yourself.

The fact that you claim to "censure disrespectful voices" undermines the entire idea of free speech at it's core. A real leader, one who wasn't bloated on pride and ego, would realize that people who differ from your opinion aren't people who don't care... They care enough to say something. Real leaders fill their cabinets with people with differing voices that so that they get a more rounded opinion from the vox populi, and not just the ones who smile and nod. It's the blind followers that will toddle off and form a coup with the next gallant piper that comes strolling into town who talks bigger than you. And there is always someone bigger and brighter than you.

You have a lot to learn, my budding little bourgeoisie. Take your lackeys back to your sitting room and have a spot of tea and discuss your next approach. This one is clearly not working.

 

[WillNever]

So what you're saying is that you refuse to back your claim up?
I didn't ask you to quote anybody, I simply asked you to link to the posts, as I consider it unreasonable for you to expect me to go back through 152 posts, in search of 6 that you claim support your position.
Because I count 5, which at the time that the claim was made 6 (including you) out of 14 wouldn't even have been a plurality, let alone a majority.

It's very easy: you just type in the names I've given you by hitting CTRL+F on either of those pages. But since you are now finding 5 when before you found only 1, it seems like you have already found a cluster of them without my assistance. Why am I not surprised..?

However, cluless and myself add up to 7, out of the current 12.

You of course being the ultimate purveyour of all things repsectfull, civil, and calm

Nice of you to say so.

 

[WillNever]

The fact that you claim to "censure disrespectful voices" undermines the entire idea of free speech at it's core. A real leader, one who wasn't bloated on pride and ego, would realize that people who differ from your opinion aren't people who don't care... They care enough to say something.

Nay Liebling, let me tell you how it works in the REAL world. In the real world, people who are genuinely interested in intellectual discussion do not act disrespectful in real-life conversations as a general rule. If they did, then there would be legions of people out there who have had all of their teeth knocked out. Therefore, I see no reason why they should behave that way on this (or any) board, either. That's not what I consider to be adult behavior, nor is it even civilized behavior.

Unfortunately, a significant number of people prefer the other, more typical type of forum environment. They'd rather be insulting total strangers, or pigeonholing people based upon a single opinion that someone expressed, or joining into some large-scale flame war. One thing that a lot of people seem to enjoy is flying off the handle over what are -- in the final analysis -- mundane and inconsequential topics and statements. In my opinion, this is why this board attracts a lot of anklebiting posters such as Trippy, Bells, Lucysnow, and perhaps yourself: people don't want a board where they have to behave like civilized adults. They prefer an unruly sandbox, where they can vent like frustrated two-year-olds and be hostile towards one another. As for why people are acting that way..? The answer is that they're unhappy people -- I think that much is obvious, if you take the time to read between the lines long enough.

High Society group is designed for people who want to continue discussing things intelligently, without the inherent childishness that is built into the general sciforums boards. Once someone starts reverting to that behavior, then they are out. The rest of us do not have to suffer that nonsense. We don't need it and we don't deserve it -- so we'll do without it.

 

[Trippy]

It's very easy: you just type in the names I've given you by hitting CTRL+F on either of those pages. But since you are now finding 5 when before you found only 1, it seems like you have already found a cluster of them without my assistance. Why am I not surprised..?

However, cluless and myself add up to 7, out of the current 12.

Clueluss, however, did not voice support for your statement Q.E.D.

To count him is dishonest.
To count the current number of members when you have expelled a dissenting voice since making the claim is dishonest.

Nice of you to say so.

You consider this respectful?

Which is infinitely worse than actual forum moderators such as yourself:

Interesting.
(here's a clue, you've clearly represented my statement out of context, so that's three counts of dishonesty in one post).

 

[Trippy]

In my opinion, this is why this board attracts a lot of anklebiting posters such as Trippy, Bells, Lucysnow, and perhaps yourself: people don't want a board where they have to behave like civilized adults.

This post is at best libelous.