S.a.m.

[Trippy]

Below is you'r clame that i thank im the only 1 on this bord whos entitled to an opinion:::

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
You somhow misconscrewed my laffin at James R's double standard (as it pertains to lockin threds) as me bein aganst people espressin ther opinions....

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Whats the reason those busy-bodys cant ignore... or not post in a thred they have no interest in... Oops... i thank i answrd my own queston... "busy-bodys"... LOL.!!!

I esplaned that what i said above was "sarcasm"... an then i set he record strate jus in case you didnt "get-it":::

"but to set the record strate... i dont thank ANY thred shud be locked... an im for "everbody" bein able to freely espress therselfs... ka-peach... lol.!!!"

Even after the esplinaton you still calme that i thank im the only 1 on this bord entitled espress an opinion... but you'r wantin that to be true dont make it so.!!!

Show me again where, in your original post, there is anything to indicate that it was directed at JamesR.
Show me again where, in your original post, there is anything to indicate that it was intended as sarcasm.

Meanwhile, I look at your post, look at the fact that you've made exactly the same sorts of comments before, look at the fact that you're using a perjorative to describe a group of people with an opinion differing from your own, because the hold that opinion, and come to the only obvious, logical conclusion, which is supported by the fact that nowhere in the original statement was there anything to denote sarcasm, and nowhere in the original statement was there anything to indicate it was directed at JamesR...

So, once again, demonstrably, I misconstrued nothing.

Oh, and do us all a favour, learn to use the quote function it's not that hard. If you want to quote multiple posts, use the

button, you know, the one that says "Multiquote this message" when you hold the mouse over it.

If you want to break someone elses post up into several segments, there's two little very helpful functions. Copy, and Paste.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

[-rant sniped-]

Anger managment much.???


A-Man.TTT

 

[glaucon]

Anger managment much.???


A-Man.TTT

lol

You gotta admit though... he has a point 'clue...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

lol

You gotta admit though... he has a point 'clue...

My pont is... im not guilty of what he acused me of... i clearly esplaned his error... an to save face hes jus wantin to argue about non-issues he caused to begin wit... an to that i say... rave on Trippy


A-Man.TTT

 

[glaucon]

My pont is... im not guilty of what he acused me of... i clearly esplaned his error... an to save face hes jus wantin to argue about non-issues he caused to begin wit... an to that i say... rave on Trippy


A-Man.TTT

I know. And you're right.

Still, he does have a point about clarity.

Although, I've got to say man, lately, it's been easier for me to understand you.... lol

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Still, he does have a point about clarity.

If he had read my posts in this thred or several other threds over the pas year in which ive discussed free-speech... its hard to emagine that it woudnt be clear to him that i was jus bein sarcastic in the post hes complainin about... but aparently that single post caut his eye an he jumped on it... an if so... then i can understan why he got it rong... but hes obvously in atack mode (has been for a week or so) over non-issues an it jus dont interest me :shrug:

 

[Trippy]

Anger managment much.???


A-Man.TTT

This is so not worth it.

 

[Trippy]

My pont is... im not guilty of what he acused me of... i clearly esplaned his error... an to save face hes jus wantin to argue about non-issues he caused to begin wit... an to that i say... rave on Trippy


A-Man.TTT

Right.
So you think that because I took the time to point out that there is nothing in the post in question that indicates that it is:

A. A sarcastic comment and
B. Directed at what you consider JamesR's hypocricy​

That I require anger management and am trying to save face?

Intersting.

You bitch me out about making an off hand post in a thread that it should either be sent to pseudoscience or the cesspool. Then claim that you don't think any thread should be closed, ever, and then some how expect me to intuit from this that your comment was intended merely as a form of witty repartee?

Intersting.

And no, I follow neither you, nor your posts.
I find your posting style bordering on nauseating, it makes my soul bleed to see even american english so severely mangled.
I find after more than two or three posts I have an overwhelming desire to claw my eyes out.

Thankfully, you generally stay out of the parts of the forum I prefer to post in - the hard science sections.

 

[leopold]

And no, I follow neither you, nor your posts.
I find your posting style bordering on nauseating, it makes my soul bleed to see even american english so severely mangled.

that makes two of us.
the poster should have been IP banned long ago to make sure they never come back.

i just wished the ignore function removed every trace of an ignored poster.

 

[Baron Max]

I find your posting style bordering on nauseating, it makes my soul bleed to see even american english so severely mangled.
I find after more than two or three posts I have an overwhelming desire to claw my eyes out.

Evidently that makes three of us! When I see his name on a post, I quickly close my eyes and scroll rapidly up or down to get it out of my sight!!

I'm sure that you can tell that his horrendous spelling is done intentionally, right? I mean, no one, anywhere, could mangle the language as bad as he does without doing it purposely. Even Asguard, who's got some reading disease, can write English far better than that clueless jerk!

What I find humorous, however, is the effort that he must go to in order to type up his posts. ....LOL! It must take quite a bit of effort to be that bad.

Baron Max

 

[otheadp]

I'm sure that you can tell that his horrendous spelling is done intentionally, right? I mean, no one, anywhere, could mangle the language as bad as he does without doing it purposely. Even Asguard, who's got some reading disease, can write English far better than that clueless jerk!

What I find humorous, however, is the effort that he must go to in order to type up his posts. ....LOL! It must take quite a bit of effort to be that bad.

Baron Max

If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

Canty Hogmanay everybody!

http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/main.asp

 

[cluelusshusbund]

[-Hate Sniped-]

[-Hatesniped]-

[Hate sniped-]

To get to know Pasture Timmy is to love Pasture Timmy:::

Wanna be my frind.???

 

[Orleander]

...And no, I follow neither you, nor your posts.
I find your posting style bordering on nauseating, it makes my soul bleed to see even american english so severely mangled.
I find after more than two or three posts I have an overwhelming desire to claw my eyes out.

Thankfully, you generally stay out of the parts of the forum I prefer to post in - the hard science sections.

agreed :bravo: Its why I no longer bitch at Asguard for his spelling errors. Clueless is so incredibly worse. Makes me wonder how he talks.

 

[Trippy]

I'm sure that you can tell that his horrendous spelling is done intentionally, right?

Absolutely. A close friend of mine on another forum went through a phase of typing with a southern drawl because that was the way he genuinely spoke, but, he gave it up in the end.

 

[Trippy]

[-Hate Sniped-]

[-Hatesniped]-

[Hate sniped-]

To get to know Pasture Timmy is to love Pasture Timmy:::

Wanna be my frind.???

And you've just gone and done it again by dismissing other peoples opinions of your posting 'style' as being hate. :/

:Shrug:

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
To get to know Pasture Timmy is to love Pasture Timmy:::

Wanna be my frind.???

And you've just gone and done it again by dismissing other peoples opinions of your posting 'style' as being hate.

oK... i apologize... mayb those opinions was from a place of love... an sinse you didnt say "no "to my offer of frindship i will give you the benifit of dout an take that as a mayb... eh

 

[Doreen]

I apologise if this is the impression you got. I am not trying to make people look stupid. What I'd like to know is why some people here think that SAM is special? Why is she so special that she must be given special licence to troll?

I think you will probably agree that trolling is a property that cannot be determined with the clarity of the temperature of a cubic meter of some gas. So your question has a little of the 'have you stopped beating your wife about it', except that it is not directed at me, the person you are asking. So SAM's specialness, at least for me, is primarily a separate issue from my sense of her being or not being a troll. I don't think she is a troll. As far as her specialness, I did go into some of my thoughts about her earlier in the thread. I think she provokes thoughts here where a backslapping consensus very well might gloss over vastly more complex issues. I think that is a definite plus. She and Tiassa may share some political opinions - though obviously not opinions about Religion - but I think her approach is very different and a needed complement. I use Tiassa to contrast, though other examples could be used. She is provocative. She puts ideas that seem obvious in one context into other contexts that 'Westerners' are less likely to consider because they keep their cliches on the two issues or time periods in history separate. I think people who disagree with her strongly often miss how much she is using their strategies against them. If the West demonized someone for certain reasons, she will then use the same arguments to demonize an ally or truism or member of the West. This is immediately taken as racist or jingoistic because the people do not recognize that Western logic is coming back at them.

Most people who argure here lay it all out in the open. She is much more likely to even appear stupid by taking on the voices and logics of people she disagrees with. A number of times I have seen people call her names or judge her thinking without realizing she is using conventional political logic that they might likely use or at least nod in agreement with and pass over in the newspaper when it relates to some other country or public figure.

If only more people realized that what they see as so offensive in her is a criticism of much rationalisation that seems ok to them in other contexts.

I don't agree with her on a number of issues, though we do intersect on certain philosophical issues and a great deal of what we dislike politically. I can get incredibly angry at her for some of her methods when they are directed at me. But they don't feel like trolling to me. And hell I can get incredibly angry at a variety of people here, many of whom I respect. However the worst for me are a group who never seem to get banned, people who are clueless in ways that are self-serving. I mean when does stupidity become trolling? When does a self-serving lack of self-awareness? The latter is one of my pet peeves.

I think she is also a minority presence here. I am not suggesting affirmative action in relation to trolling, but if you are asking me about what makes her special, well that is part of it.

That's part of my take.

 

[Baron Max]

... So SAM's specialness, at least for me, is primarily a separate issue from my sense of her being or not being a troll. I don't think she is a troll. .....

I think she is also a minority presence here. I am not suggesting affirmative action in relation to trolling, but if you are asking me about what makes her special, well that is part of it.

That's part of my take.

Doreen, thank you. I read that post several times to make sure that it sank into my thick skull properly and the way you probalby intended it. As difficult as it is for me to defend SAM in any way, I think you're right. SAM pisses me off, but at the same time, she/he makes me think in different perspectives about various subjects.

If I had a real complaint about SAM it would be her/his obsession (is there a harsher word for it?) about the Palestinian-Israeli issue. In my opinion, SAM takes that issue much too far, and its brought up much too often for my tastes. In fact, I've often thought the if SAM didn't bring the issue up so much, I might learn to have some sympathies where I resist them now.

Again, thanks for your thoughts. SAM is a difficult one to deal with, but you've certainly put her/him in a more favorable light.

Baron Max

PS - don't tell anyone that I agreed with you about her/him.

 

[spidergoat]

i'm having a hard time understanding the apology demand. i mean, if someone blatantly disregards forum rules, then discipline is required (which i'm not sure that sam did*). but to demand an apology for expressing what you think on a discussion forum seems weird. and it's bound to be insincere anyway, so what's the point?

Should moderators be allowed to dispense justice creatively by giving someone a chance to express regret for their actions? I think they should. There are many forum precedents for that. A member can always choose not to make that gesture.

...Early on me an SAM also poked at each other... but after seein how she was bein ganged-up-on... then i jus wanted to defend her.!!!

It looks to me like shes bein goated into the directon of brakin rules for the purpos of gettin rid of her.!!!

I think that could be a factor too. I think moderators should try to stay out of intense conversations that they also need to moderate. What is that thing that police try to do? ...Defuse the situation. There is also the factor that the more you say, the more of a chance there is that you will say something stupid. One must acknowledge her voluminous contributions to the board.

I have stomped on Sam many times for her habit of arguing disingenuously. She has done it so many times that it is long past the point of being able to excuse it as carelessness, and can only be treated as a blatant symptom of a lack of honor. On a website that is supposed to be a place of science and scholarship, that is the most egregious possible violation. I have stood up for her in the past every time her antics showed up on the Moderators board, because when she's in the proper frame of mind she can provide real value to a discussion. But she has finally tried my patience one too many times and I will no longer defend her.

Please understand that I am not objecting to the content of her posts, her religion, her politics, or anything at that level. Those are issues that bother many people but not me, even when I disagree with her. I specfically do not align with the common complaint that she pushes her anti-Israel anti-America pro-Islam agenda too caustically and starts flame wars. I have no problem with her rhetoric. When you're all alone on your side of an argument sometimes you become shrill.

My objection is to her dishonorable style of discourse, typically waiting a few weeks and then repeating an assertion that has already been disproved, in the hope that nobody will notice before she has a chance to influence our younger and more impressionable members. That is a positively wretched violation of the scientific method, and is completely unforgivable. However, most people don't notice this because they don't pay enough attention to the continuity of her posts. Even among the Moderators I have a hard time making this point. I think James might be the only one who understands what I'm talking about because he too has had to spend far too much of his limited volunteer's time and effort on Sam-watch.

But they have their own reasons for disciplining her and even though they're not my reasons, they're not wrong and I will not take her side any more.

That is exactly my point of view. There is a long history of SAM being less than honest. The current incident is minor, but one could make the case that it's part of a larger pattern.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
*Here is an explanation of the lie:


SAM said:

And as James has clearly said, sympathising with the victims of American invasions and occupations is bigotry.​

SAM's original statement that James characterized as "Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.":

How many Americans in their hearts are on the side of the humble families of Pakistani citizens slaughtered in Predator drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks, and how many are on the side of the angelic, charming, Harvard Law School educated first black president of the United States, who, a few days after his inauguration, ordered these drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks in the name of 9/11? (Something he had said he would do if he were elected.)​

If James called anything bigotry, it was not the act of sympathizing with any particular party in the conflict, but rather the rhetoric of SAM's original statement. I would also agree that the question is loaded, it's a false dichotomy. The premise is if you support the president, you are in favor of killing poor innocent people and, after all, how much more appealing is the image of a charismatic, well educated, historic leader compared to poor humble illiterate peasants?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Should moderators be allowed to dispense justice creatively by giving someone a chance to express regret for their actions?

Moderaters are in charge... an perty much like God can do as they please so that ant the issue... the queston is... how will they continue to handle the consiquences of ther "creative-justice".???


Note of interest:::

In Gods wrath... he killed everbody who woudnt knuckle-under wit-out protest :shrug:


A-Man.TTT