Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Shame that.Some people haven't had a positive day in their life.
Even if life is crap one has to try and extract something positive to keep moving.
Shame that.Some people haven't had a positive day in their life.
Nonsense. You are simply being argumentative now.No, you may have intended it to mean that it should also include "Anyone else v Tiassa" (i.e. Tiassa being the common denominator) but, unfortunately, that is not what you wrote
You must have been a delight as a child.Benefiting from someone's action does not absolve that someone from any and all intentions behind that action.
Stop being pathetic, DaveC426913. Don't tell me what I know or don't. You don't agree with me, that's fine, but trying to tell me what I do or don't know is childish. Also don't blame me for you being unable to adequately express your view. If all you have is your pathetic little efforts at retort, then there's really only one person wasting screen space here. The beefs people have with Tiassa is still only part of the wider issue, which includes similar accusations by other moderators to other people. I get that you may be myopic due to not having been on the receiving end of such, but it is a wider issue than just Tiassa. I'm sorry you can't, or won't, see that.Nonsense. You are simply being argumentative now.
The small issue is James beef with Tiassa; the larger issue is, generally, beefs with Tiassa.
You now know this. Stop wasting screen space and move on.
What is it that you don't get, exactly? Or are you still struggling to write what you actually mean?"Mama! You brought me here to this restaurant selfishly, because of your craving for food!" - said Little Sarkie, between mouthfuls of ice cream and sprinkles.
That is textbook hypocrisy.
As explained, there is no hypocrisy, so your complaint and criticism is moot. And I'd have thought that you're grown up enough for stupidity to be beneath you. What a fine pair we make, eh!You're a grownup now; such hypocrisy should be beneath you.
Now that I've clarified for you what I meant by "larger issue", you do know. So yes, I am quite able to tell you what you know. And wasting more time arguing it is just jaw-flapping at the expense of readers.Don't tell me what I know or don't.
What you have shown is that you dont truly know, let alone understand, what the larger issue is, and seem to want to double down on the "it's Tiassa!" issue. However, now that I've made you aware of the even larger issue, that shows yours not to be the larger issue, you're really just showing yourself to be irrelevant to that larger issue, and, if anything, just a mouthpiece for its continuation. Which is a shame.Now that I've clarified for you what I meant by "larger issue", you do know. So yes, I am quite able to tell you what you know.
If you honestly think that then, unfortunately, that speaks volumes as to the poor state of this website. But, hey, you do you.I am moving on to the more important aspects. You do you.
When one has been shown to be stupid, as you were, it is prudent to take note, lest you continue to come across as stupid. If you're okay with that look, you do you.It does not look good on you.
FFS, Seattle. Go to post #57 of this thread. There you will find a link to a thread in which you were a participant, but which you have obviously, like Sarkus, forgotten (apart from your own role in it, perhaps). Read the first few posts of that thread.We know that both James and Tiassa (much more so Tiassa) have been passive aggressive in this exchange for years. James now is upset about a specific accusation from Tiassa but he hasn't been very direct in showing exactly where and what Tiassa said. It seems to require reading pages of dialog and then interpreting it in a specific way in order to be offended.
I explained why I made this thread in post #1 of this thread, in detail. FFS, go and read it.He could come out of it without this thread other than to announce that Tiassa is no longer a moderator.
Perhaps, unlike Sarkus, you might like to venture an opinion on whether the substance of Tiassa's allegations against me is true or false. So, how about it? Am I a white supremacist, Seattle? Am I racist? Am I a sex crimes advocate?That's OK but it doesn't make James right and Tiassa wrong.
This thread isn't about my faults - unless those faults happen to be that I'm racist, a white supremacist and/or a sex crimes advocate. If I'm any of those things, then clearly I'm also a flaming hypocrite, like Sarkus claims I am. Maybe, it also follows that it was completely immoral of me to remove Tiassa as a moderator of this forum, in that case.I'm not one of them but it is what it is. James isn't without his faults. He is rigid in thought, frequently arrogant and rude in a way that, IMO, a moderator shouldn't be. I didn't say he was unhinged.
You think? Poor Tiassa, right?James opened the thread, let it run too long and so at this point it is all about throwing poo at Tiassa.
This thread isn't about any of that. Your issues with me are your issues with me. I previously suggested that you ought to start a separate thread about those, if you insist on dredging up old grudges and making a public spectacle of yourself again. This isn't the place for that.However James isn't the ideal moderator. There is some potential there but he is at odds with everyone but you and slings mud at the poster in most every response. He isn't trying to fit in, get along, be friendly, or have a two-way discussion with anyone. It's a lecture, a "I'm right" one-way post and it usually ends with some misdirection such as "why do you care, why are you here, haven't you learned anything, maybe you should go and reflect on this" or it's just outright name calling. You know, like you just did with Sarkus telling him he doesn't have to read this thread. Neither do you and I or anyone else.
Do you know what happens when you drop sensible moderation of content on a discussion site? Twitter (X) is what happens. The trolls take over.If you need the threat of a ban to run a discussion site (other than the nightly bots) then you don't have much of a discussion site.
Please make your allegations elsewhere, and at least try to support them with appropriate evidence.It's beyond ironic for James to be this upset at being called (I guess) a racist when he was done the same many times over and with little thought or data, just because he can.
Don't be silly. I'm way ahead of you. And you continue to demonstrate that you can't catch up.Are you up to speed yet?
Not at all. I completely understand your intellectual interest.Again, not really. I wasn't interested. Noone was particularly interested. Now I am, from an intellectual point of view. Is that still a puzzle for you?
Of course you aren't. You're merely a disinterested, interested observer. Entirely objective in every way. Right?I'm carrying no grudge about anything, James R.
It's ironic that you fail at all four things you accuse me of, in the very same post in which you make the accusation. But you don't see that, do you?Well, after filtering through your insults, misrepresentations, and bluster, it seems you still can't grasp the situation...
Ah, but now you do.Your spat with Tiassa - I couldn't have cared less about it.
That's a bizarre reading. What do you think this thread is about? Did you read post #1? Are you aware that Tiassa is no longer a moderator?You're a big boy, with all the power at this website. It was in your gift to resolve it, yet you chose not to.
Tell me why you think they were serious, Sarkus. This is a change of tune for you.Were the accusations serious? Sure.
Tell me why you think I was hurt by them, Sarkus.Were you hurt? Clearly.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you give a fuck, don't you? If you didn't, you wouldn't be here, endlessly repeating yourself on the topic, never knowing when to stop.Should others give a fuck about it? Not if they don't want to.
You don't speak for "most". And you don't know. You're just assuming.And most don't/didn't.
Let's consider a hypothetical, shall we? Let us assume that you have a friend, A. Let us assume that another person you know, B, makes a hurtful, false allegation against your friend, A. How do you react? And, more importantly, how do you think the average person in your position should react, in these circumstances?Yet you wanted us to. You wanted us to give you validation. You wanted us to pat you on the head and go "Aw, diddums. Did nasty hate-filled little man say nasty hate-filled things about you? There, there. Dry your tears. It'll all be okay."
It would not do at all to fall for it, would it, Sarkus?I'm sorry if some of us didn't fall for it, or simply don't care enough about you, or others here, or this website in general, to satisfy your cry for attention in this regard.
Indeed. My spat with Tiassa, as you put it, is all very hypothetical, really, isn't it? Just like the A vs B spat I just described. Such things tell us nothing useful about "real-world problems".Some of us choose to save our concerns for real-world problems. Your spat with Tiassa just isn't one of them.
It is indeed. You're not entirely alone, but are you aware you're an outlier, or not?However, now I find it interesting, from an intellectual point of view, examining the evidence etc. But, hey, that's just me.
Seattle:
FFS, Seattle. Go to post #57 of this thread. There you will find a link to a thread in which you were a participant, but which you have obviously, like Sarkus, forgotten (apart from your own role in it, perhaps). Read the first few posts of that thread.
Come on, this isn't difficult. There's no mystery. You're a smart guy. Try.
I explained why I made this thread in post #1 of this thread, in detail. FFS, go and read it.
Perhaps, unlike Sarkus, you might like to venture an opinion on whether the substance of Tiassa's allegations against me is true or false. So, how about it? Am I a white supremacist, Seattle? Am I racist? Am a sex crimes advocate?
Are you unsure? Is there no way you can tell. Apparently, Sarkus can't decide. Are you also hopelessly lost?
Also, does it matter to you whether those accusations against me are true or false? Are you happy, like Sarkus apparently is, to be a member of an internet forum if it's run by a racist, white supremacist sex crimes advocate?
This thread isn't about my faults - unless those faults happen to be that I'm racist, a white supremacist and/or a sex crimes advocate. If I'm any of those things, then clearly I'm also a flaming hypocrite, like Sarkus claims I am. Maybe, it also follows that it was completely immoral of me to remove Tiassa as a moderator of this forum, in that case.
What do you think?
You're very concerned about rudeness and arrogance, you say, along with rigidity of thought. So, who else around here deserves your reprobation for their arrogance, rudeness and rigidity of thought, Seattle? Can't think of anybody in particular?
You think? Poor Tiassa, right?
It's nice to see that you're suddenly concerned about poo being flung at other people, though, even if you're a bit selective about who you're concerned for.
This thread isn't about any of that. Your issues with me are your issues with me. I previously suggested that you ought to start a separate thread about those, if you insist on dredging up old grudges and making a public spectacle of yourself again. This isn't the place for that.
Do you know what happens when you drop sensible moderation of content on a discussion site? Twitter (X) is what happens. The trolls take over.
Please make your allegations elsewhere, and at least try to support them with appropriate evidence.
I can tell that you're itching to re-run an old matter. If you want to re-prosecute your case, you can do that. It didn't go well for you last time, but who knows? Maybe repeating the same thing again will lead to a different outcome? What are the chances? Take it to a different thread.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.I don't think anyone on here is any of those things that you feel you have been called.
Did you read post #1, like I suggested, or not?It's a bit much for you to say that I'm making a spectacle of myself when this whole thread is about you making a spectacle of yourself in the extreme.
Did you understand when I told you I'd be happy to discuss your issues in a different thread, or not?I don't really care about your brush off about what I can do and how it "didn't go well for me last time".
You're not done with it, yet. Neither is Sarkus.Almost no one reads this site so why keep this thread open for so long?
Like I said to Sarkus, you don't speak for everybody. You speak for you. Also, here you are, caring.PM Tiassa and say whatever you want to. No one else cares.
Making scurrilous false accusations goes a bit beyond being hard to communicate with.Yes, Tiassa is hard to deal with and can barely communicate, so what? It is what it is.
See post #1. So far, things have gone more or less as I predicted they would, in that post.What are you expecting from this thread.
What would be the right thing for you to say about that, under the circumstances? Have you given it any thought at all?Do you want everyone to say "Tiassa is more at fault than you"?
You decided to get in my face in this thread. Nobody asked you to post here, on this topic.Again, who cares? You are both hard to deal with, he more so but you are more frequently in everyone's face.
Does it not matter to you whether false accusations are made by one member here against another? Or does it only matter to you, perhaps, when you are on the receiving end?I assume you aren't any of those things that you say Tiassa called you. So what? Is your ego that fragile?
No?You aren't that sensitive to when those things are charged against anyone else.
I do not know that. However, there have been instances in the past where people who are those things have been permanently banned by me.You know that no one here is any of those things.
We could quibble over what makes a "bad person", but I don't think that's necessary, at this time.The most you could say about this site is that there are a few "crazies" that pop up from time to time. No one is a "bad" person here. Everyone is a nuanced individual. That's the reality.
I'm not rude in every reply. You tend to get what you give, with me, although I am tolerant of even quite extraordinary levels of rudeness. That's a good thing. A moderator needs to have quite a thick skin, because we get all kinds here.It isn't "moderating" to be rude in every reply.
I can be, and I have been.You can't be accused of "trolling" and everyone else can.
It's never too late.Tiassa isn't going to apologize to you. You know that. We all know that.
I'm confident I will tire of it long before Sarkus does. He has an intellectual interest, you see.We know that you and Sarkus are going to continue sniping each other tit for tat until the end of time.
Just make sure you get yourself up to speed before you make inanely stupid statements like that, in future. Then I won't have to.You don't need to include "FFS" when you address me by the way. Have some emotional control and manners "FFS". Grow up.
See post #1.What is the point of this thread...
It's not entirely up to me as to what is accomplished with this site. I do not own it. Clearly, it accomplishes the owners' aims, for the time being. If it did not, we wouldn't be having this discussion here.... and what are you even hoping to accomplish with this site?
I think I'm doing okay. Thanks for asking.Whatever it is, you aren't doing very well, wouldn't you agree?
Do you think the two of you are single-handedly keeping the site alive? Could you possibly be overestimating how important your contributions are?If I left and Sarkus left, what would there be to do on here?
What's your goal? For now, apparently it is not for the site to die, because if you wanted that you could have deprived us all of your important contributions long ago.You and Dave could congratulate each other in every thread but there wouldn't be many threads and the site would finally just die, which seems to be your goal.
Nobody has stopped his blogging.Maybe everyone should leave and Tiassa could have his blog back, making long-winded, incoherent discourse to his imaginary audience?
Who knows? Maybe you'll get to find out.Or maybe everyone could just post and quit being so sensitive. This site isn't going to turn into a hate filled site without your "moderation".
Examples?There are plenty of sites with lite moderation that are quite civil.
Actions speak louder than words, Seattle. I look forward to seeing more of your nice intelligent and reasonable contributions, full of humor, in future posts. I'm all for it, believe me.I'm not the boogeyman here. I'm actually a nice guy with a good sense of humor and I am educated, intelligent and reasonable. I'm sure you'll have some ass^hol# comment but maybe taking a different tack would bring more change?
It's okay. Different people have different senses of humor. Mine tends to be dry and self-deprecating. Maybe not your cup of tea. Maybe there's some more stuff you missed, too.Wegs has a sense of humor, I think exchemist, Dave, even Write4u do as well, billvonn too. Actually, what what has been shown so far, you are the only one that hasn't shown a sense of humor in any post that I can recall.
What was it you said? "Everyone is a nuanced individual. That's the reality."Yet, I'm pretty sure (not positive) that in person you probably are all those things that I used in describing myself and others.
I never try to be an ahole, I assure you.Just don't try so hard to be an ahole and others will probably do the same...
If that's what you honestly believe.Don't be silly. I'm way ahead of you. And you continue to demonstrate that you can't catch up.
In the specific case at hand, yes, that is correct.Of course you aren't. You're merely a disinterested, interested observer. Entirely objective in every way. Right?
I do, James R. But I'm guessing that you don't see that if I accuse you of X and "fail at" X, then that's a good thing for me. And you think you're way ahead.It's ironic that you fail at all four things you accuse me of, in the very same post in which you make the accusation. But you don't see that, do you?
Slowly you catch up. Slowly.Ah, but now you do.
Note that I said you "chose" not to. Past tense. I am aware that you have now removed his moderator status - hence this thread - but you chose (past tense) not to when the accusations and refusal at support / apology were made, you chose (past tense) not to when you made a song and dance about it and posted not one but two separate threads about it. Catching up yet?That's a bizarre reading. What do you think this thread is about? Did you read post #1? Are you aware that Tiassa is no longer a moderator?
No it's not a change of tune. Maybe you're confusing considering something being a serious issue, and caring about it? As to why they are serious: twofold - one, it is calling into question someone's character, and secondly it is a moderator doing it.Tell me why you think they were serious, Sarkus. This is a change of tune for you.
Because they're bring in to question your character, James R.Tell me why you think I was hurt by them, Sarkus.
As said (do keep up!), from an intellectual point of view I find the case interesting. Otherwise, no, not really.You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you give a fuck, don't you?
And you're assuming they give a shit. Yet how many people weighed in to tell you two to get a room mid-spat? Exchemist likened it to the a scene in Airplane. Origin suggested you effectively get a room (and contain it to that thread). Foghorn referred to it as old hat and sarcastically as a potboiler. Billvon agreed that "this is what mods do when post numbers are low". Even DaveC426913 said that if you two didn't want comments from the peanut gallery you wouldn't be airing it in public.You don't speak for "most". And you don't know. You're just assuming.
False analogy. Neither of you are friends. I don't know either of you well enough for this analogy to be relevant.Let's consider a hypothetical, shall we? Let us assume that you have a friend, A.
Can't stop digging, can you. Yet you complain when others do it. Still wondering what the larger issue is here?Now, this is unfair, of course. Who said I am your friend? Clearly, I'm not your friend. (Do you have friends, Sarkus?)
It depends on who those acquaintances are, and the relative powers they yield. If an employee insults their CEO, I couldn't give a shit. Most people wouldn't. The CEO can resolve the issue themself. If the person doing the insulting weilds all the power, however, then it becomes an issue I'd more likely care about. If I am confident that the person insulted has the wherewithall and capability to deal with it then, similarly, I'd not give a shit and just let them resolve it between themselves. And preferably behind closed doors.You have an acquaintance, A, and another person you know, B, makes a hurtful allegation against A. How do you react? And, more importantly, how should the average person in your position react, in these circumstances?
Not initially. Remember, my first reaction was to roll my eyes and not give a shit.Here's how you react.
Remember, James R, you've accepted that you are but a mere acquaintance. Why should I believe that you have been accused? Do you believe everything an acquaintance tells you? I could also not initially find the accusations on my cursory read through of Tiassa's posts. So, from an intellectual point of view this would be the first thing to do. After all, if there are no actual accusations by Tiassa, the whole matter is moot. And I'm still waiting for where the 3rd accusation was made. Care to provide?The first step, obviously, is to establish the facts. Did B, in fact, even make the allegation(s) that A told you about? Because, you know, it's vitally important to find out first whether A is telling the truth about the fact of the allegations.
No, the next step would be to gather the evidence upon which those accusations are made. If there is no evidence then those accusations would be unfounded. End of story with regard the case. You can then seek redress however you deem appropriate. And no, my view of your character, as poor as I find it to be, would not have a bearing on this matter.If you can ever manage to establish that the allegations were actually made, to your own satisfaction, then the next question is whether A is overreacting to the allegations. Because it's important that to you that everybody who is accused of something doesn't lose their shit over it. They shouldn't get emotional about it, for instance.
This is a different matter to the intellectual matter of the case at hand.Equally as important as making sure that A doesn't become irrational about the allegations is making sure that A isn't being hypocritical about the accusations. If A has ever accused anybody else of something, then A really deserves what he gets. It would be hugely hypocritical for A to complain about false accusations if he has ever made accusations himself. So, it's very important to investigate that.
No, as pointed out above, the question of whether the allegations are true or not is the second thing, after accepting that there have been allegations. Do keep up.Somewhere a long way down the line, it might become relevant to consider the question of whether B's allegations about A are true or false, but that should only happen after one has established that A's personal character is beyond reproach, and after one has established that A is a purely rational being who isn't having an unsuitable emotional reaction to being accused.
When one has established that accusations have been made, and that there is no evidence to support them, then we could examine the motive of the accuser, sure. But to consider motives and character rather than evidence is to commit an ad hominem. And we wouldn't want that, would we.One should not examine the character or history of person B, who made the allegations, at least not until one has dealt with the questionable personal characteristics of person A, the target of the allegations.
No one is saying you shouldn't have gotten upset, James R. False accusations make people upset, especially regarding matters such as racism, and bigotry. It is the manner of how one behaves when upset, James R. People with power seem to think they can cry louder and that everyone should come and comfort them. And then they criticise people that they falsely accuse for getting too emotional. Oh, look, we're speaking to your hypocrisy. See, this one of the areas that that can come in to play.If one ever gets around to considering whether B's allegations are true or false, then if they turn out to be false everybody should just move on with their lives and forget it ever happened; A most of all. Because A shouldn't get upset over things are simply aren't true. That would be an inappropriate, emotional reaction, in the circumstances. Perhaps B should not be trusted so much in the future, but that's just something to bear in mind.
Well, it still speaks to the wider issue at play here. But maybe you're not yet caught up to what that might be? Care to hazard a guess?If, on the other hand, the allegations are true, then B was totally justified in raising them in the first place, and we can just add the true allegations to the long list of A's other character flaws and move on with our own lives.
In a purely intellectual investigation, no, there is no need for it. The facts speak for themselves, regardless of people's emotional response to them.Under no circumstances and at no stage in the process of investigation and rational judgment should one ever pat A on the head and say "Aw, diddums. Poor you. The nasty man made false accusations against you. I feel for you."
It's mostly A's fault that this issue has not been dealt with quickly, efficiently, and in private. A chose not to do that. A chose instead to create multiple threads about it.But it's mostly A's fault for letting himself get all worked up over it.
I tried, James R. Heck, we all tried not to be sucked in. But you just pulled everyone into it. You made sure of that. Have you not considered what would have happened if you removed Tiassa as moderator 6 months ago, and did it behind closed doors, and didn't highlight your spat with him across multiple threads you set up for the purpose?A whining about B's nasty allegations. You wouldn't want to fall for that act from A, would you? Let yourself be sucked into some irrelevant drama between A and B? No, you'd stay right out of it. You wouldn't try to insert yourself into it and make it all about A's character flaws. Right?
I have no bias against you James R. If you wish to dismiss all the criticism against you as being because of that, that would be an ad hominem on your part. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?You especially wouldn't do that if you had some bias towards A from the start, because of some ancient spat you had with A previously? Right? You wouldn't because you're supremely rational. You don't need anybody to say "poor diddums" to you. You're a big boy, too. You don't get hurt. Nobody should.
Who said they can't tell us anything useful? Of course they can. But to examine that you would have to use it as a case-study and look at it somewhat more objectively than you appear capable of here.Indeed. My spat with Tiassa, as you put it, is all very hypothetical, really, isn't it? Just like the A vs B spat I just described. Such things tell us nothing useful about "real-world problems".
In finding an examination of it to be interesting from an intellectual point of view? I'd be surprised if I wasn't.It is indeed. You're not entirely alone, but are you aware you're an outlier, or not?
As said (do keep up!), from an intellectual point of view I find the case interesting. Otherwise, no, not really.
Neither of you are friends. I don't know either of you well enough for this analogy to be relevant.
If I am confident that the person insulted has the wherewithall and capability to deal with it then, similarly, I'd not give a shit and just let them resolve it between themselves.
Maybe in such a scenario I should go up to the CEO and put my arm around him and go "Aw, diddums, did nasty little employee say nasty little things about you? There, there. It'll be okay." What do you think? Would that be how you think the average person should react.
What you're actually describing is when I care about the case from an intellectual point of view. Don't forget that.
Remember, James R, you've accepted that you are but a mere acquaintance.
Why should I believe that you have been accused? Do you believe everything an acquaintance tells you?
And no, my view of your character, as poor as I find it to be, would not have a bearing on this matter.
We can investigate why you lost your shit over it, but that's really for you to answer, as each to their own.
False accusations make people upset, especially regarding matters such as racism, and bigotry. It is the manner of how one behaves when upset, James R.
People with power seem to think they can cry louder and that everyone should come and comfort them. And then they criticise people that they falsely accuse for getting too emotional.
The facts speak for themselves, regardless of people's emotional response to them.
Now, if you're still referring to what people might do when not specifically looking at things from an intellectual point of view, then that's up to them, taking into account whether they give a shit about the people involved, etc.
It's mostly A's fault that this issue has not been dealt with quickly, efficiently, and in private.
This all speaks eloquently for your stance on matters of this kind, Sarkus. It also fully confirms what I wrote in my last post to you, apart from some details about your order of priorities in your intellectual investigation process.I have no bias against you James R.
I don't think that's something I can explain to you. Either you get it, or you don't. And you very clearly don't.So what, exactly, is your issue with someone not giving a shit enough about your spat to pat you on the head and go "aww, diddums, did nasty hate-filled little man say nasty hate-filled little things about you?" etc?
So there is some niggling sense there that, just maybe, you've missing something? Or not?You've gone on at length to try to show me that this is somehow not the way it should be, so I'm wondering what the actual issue you have with it is?
Oh yes, I'm confident I know that. As for you, you still just haven't quite got enough information to make any judgment about the legitimacy of the accusations at all. Right?Presumably you are confident enough to know whether those accusations are true or not?
Do you think Tiassa's false accusations themselves have now been adequately dealt with? If not, how would you advise that I proceed, being in the position of power I'm in?You are in the only position of power to deal with what you consider such egregiously false accusations.
I have no issues with you not giving a shit. You very likely can't help yourself.So, other than perhaps some insecurity for which you seek constant validation, what is the real issue you have with me not giving a shit (at least before the intellectual interest kicked in)?