This post is copied from the Moderators forum.
Original time stamp: 13 February, 2014, at GMT 11:30 am.
---------------------
Tiassa:
Here's some of the documentation you requested.
Here's your first post on the "hysteria" issue, directed at lightgigantic:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...sonhood-quot&p=3160082&viewfull=1#post3160082
In that post you write:
Tiassa said:
When we're down to deliberately implying that a woman needs to be sexually assaulted for therapeutic benefit, the facts of misogyny in general and rape advocacy in particular are laid bare.
lightgigantic's (LG's) first reponse is
here in post #1066.
He ask about how you took ElectricFetus's (EF's) "blowjob"/feeding the trolls comment. No discussion of the "hysteria" issue. In other words, LG assumes you're referring to EF's comment and not "hysteria". LG does refer to Bell's "hysterical rage" but there's no advocating an old-fashioned treatment for that. LG is clearly using the word "hysterical" in its modern sense and he has no idea what you're talking about when you claim he is saying that Bells needs to be sexually assaulted for therapeutic benefit.
So in
#1068, sure that LG is avoiding the issue, you take him to task for trying to change the subject (by talking about EF's comment and not the "hysteria" thing you want him to address).
Here, you ask him for the first time what EF's comment has to do with "
your rape advocacy" (i.e. LG's supposed advocacy of rape by his using the word "hysteria").
LG reponds in #1069 that it was EF who made the "blowjob" comment. Again, it is clear that he does not understand at this point that you are accusing him (LG) of rape advocacy. He thinks you've mistaken what EF said for a statement made by LG.
So
you ask him again and
again he quotes only EF's comment.
And
you ask him the same question again, without adding any new explanation of how he (LG) has advocated rape. You expect him to piece together what you, Tiassa, are thinking. You're giving him no help.
LG's confusion becomes especially clear in
post #1078. I quote:
LG said:
If you want to demonstrate "my rape advocacy" you will have to be a bit more specific than simply saying stuff off the top of your head with loaded questions. :shrug:
In other words, LG is asking you to explain why you claim that he (LG) has advocated rape.
The only help you're willing to offer in
post #1080 is this:
Tiassa said:
Review your response at #1066, and see if you can figure out what's wrong with it.
In other words, you demand that LG put the pieces together and somehow work out what you might be getting at. You're not going to give him any hints. You're just waiting for him to fail your test at this point.
In
post #1085, LG
still thinks you're talking about EF's blowjob comment. He also says:
LG said:
it would be even nicer if you would demonstrate your claim of "my rape advocacy" rather than hysterically bantering it around in a loaded question format in a thread already championing the cause of hysteria.
In other words, he is onto your game. He knows you're referring to something he is supposed to have said or done, but he doesn't know what. Once again, he asks you to clarify.
In response, you write a
moderator note (post #1088) warning people in general that "the clock is running", but not mentioning LG specifically. Now there's a threat of a definite ban on the way, but LG still has no idea what is being asked of him or why.
Quite reasonably, he says (
#1089):
LG said:
Given that I am probably on the menu [for a ban], its a bit hard to offer an explanation of "my rape advocacy" when you purposely refuse to discuss it outside loaded questions. :shrug:
Then we have an 11 hour gap, after which you, Tiassa
say:
Tiassa said:
We are, for the moment, turning our attention to the policy dispute, as this situation will have implications for the rest of Sciforums. A brief general stay is in effect.
To the other, that isn't going to help the people who have demonstrated deliberate intransigence over the course of fifteen months. You were warned at the outset.
... whatever that is supposed to mean.
Presumably, it means that you're now looking for a reason to ban LG based on unspecified rape advocacy dating back 15 months, that you apparently warned him about at some point.
LG
replies (post #1101), saying:
LG said:
It's not really an effective warning when you won't offer any clue on who or even what is the intransigence .... much less on the nature of it being deliberate or not.
In other words, after all the wasted words and blustering, LG
still has no idea what you're requiring of him or how he might avoid the ban you're about to hand out to him.
And that's it! Some time after this post, LG is banned by Tiassa.
LG
never knew why he was about to be banned.
At no time was he ever given an official and specific and personal warning. At no time was there any specific discussion of his offence.
In short, LG was denied what is called in law natural justice. He was not informed of the charge laid against him. He was given no opportunity to reply to the specifics of the charge.
This was a kangaroo court with an outcome that might have been pre-planned.
----
Now, let me be clear. I am
not suggesting that LG did nothing wrong in that thread. I'm not even suggesting that a ban was inappropriate. But a permanent ban on the grounds of "hysteria" and an unspecified history of "misogyny" is unjustified.