S.a.m.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

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.

Except the logic doesn't work. She creates her opposition through negative interaction not intellectual rigor. She creates her opposition and then cries foul and accuses all others of being racist against her etc. Its to a point that she attracts the opposite reaction from what she is looking for, I agree with Baron that now I have become indifferent to the issues she wishes to highlight. Now I just find myself thinking how to best protect the west and its values and think let others take care of their own. Hence she alienates those who actually sympathize with the issues she wishes to highlight.

I think she is more ego driven as opposed to 'topic' driven.

 

[iceaura]

I will agree with clueless husband, first,

but then with Fraggle on the loss of patience with the irritatingly (and yes, dishonorably) disengenuous approach, the merry-go-round of jello-nailing that so many arguments with SAM devolve into.

Nevertheless I will still defend her, and the reason is that her faults are relatively mild and her virtues more significant in comparison with the faults of the Bandar-log troop of critics that follow her around on this forum, trolling her postings

I just don't want to see this kind of stuff pass unquestioned on one side only:

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.

There is nothing - nothing at all - "bigoted" about the rhetoric of SAM's original statement there. It is a legitimate, pointed, and in the thread pertinent rhetorical question. It ought to be possible to post like that on this forum, without drawing down a barrage of personal attacks.

 

[Gustav]

We have to rely on fantasy and untenable assertions in order to depict S.A.M.'s crimes against Sciforums. And yet we allow blatant, repeated offenses pass for others.

I'm sorry, but a lying administrator, syntactical nitpicking applied nowhere else at this site, and weak, superficial comparisons just don't cut it. But if that's good enough for you all, well, I can see why this community suffers the problems it does.

heh
i see the mighty james is still at it....doing his best to turn this forum into a cesspool of petty and spiteful grudges and incompetent management

way to go buddy boy
you suck

as for the goatman and iceaura's "original statement".......





like she said, she wrote nothing. she quoted an article by jay janson, the sentiments expressed is presumed to be shared by sam to an unknown and probably varying degree depending on which particular point in the article one focuses on

 

[Challenger78]

Was SAM banned? If so I have so say, come on grow some skin, if people don't want to read her threads then they can choose not to open them. If they don't like her posts, the put her on ignore. SAM and I have, in the past, went round and round and I don't have a single complaint.

Yeah, we shouldn't have banned sam.

 

[Gustav]

Except the logic doesn't work. She creates her opposition through negative interaction not intellectual rigor. She creates her opposition and then cries foul and accuses all others of being racist against her etc. Its to a point that she attracts the opposite reaction from what she is looking for, I agree with Baron that now I have become indifferent to the issues she wishes to highlight. Now I just find myself thinking how to best protect the west and its values and think let others take care of their own. Hence she alienates those who actually sympathize with the issues she wishes to highlight.

I think she is more ego driven as opposed to 'topic' driven.

basically what i get from this addled garbage is that.......pointing instances of hypocrisy to either lucy or the baron will see them backing them into a corner where they discard all pretense of an intellect and come out screeching and snapping like rabid dogs

awesome
i must praise your honesty lucy
woohoo!

 

[Gustav]

Yeah, we shouldn't have banned sam.

who is this we?

it is only the vindictive administrator and one other moderator that voted to perma ban her in the 2/3 majority vote

that failed
so....

the 1 mth ban was james's decision
his alone. his disingenuous plan b

by gad! i dont give a fuck what you guys have to say! sam is going down!

 

[Doreen]

Except the logic doesn't work.

I assume you mean my logic. I wasn't putting forward logic, I was assessing her through my experience of her.

She creates her opposition through negative interaction not intellectual rigor.

I think a leftist muslim on science forum is going to run into opposition. Implying that she is controlling her discussion opponents seem illogical to me.

She creates her opposition and then cries foul and accuses all others of being racist against her etc.

I think religionist or anti-third world perspective would be more likely to be her claim. The former should be obvious and I think a great many people here would admit to being opponents of religion. As for the latter, there are people who are more conservative than her. They are the ones who are against her. Seems to me there is a connection.

Its to a point that she attracts the opposite reaction from what she is looking for, I agree with Baron that now I have become indifferent to the issues she wishes to highlight.

SAM has made you indifferent to certain issues? What do you think about this? What does that mean about you? Are you saying you would have different opinions on these issues if she had acted differently?

Now I just find myself thinking how to best protect the west and its values and think let others take care of their own.

So she has controlled your thinking?

Hence she alienates those who actually sympathize with the issues she wishes to highlight.

Same response here.

I think she is more ego driven as opposed to 'topic' driven.

Well, that's mind reading.

 

[Doreen]

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?

Sure, it's a loaded question, but as an American I look at the liberal, dovish citizens around me and they do not care about the Pakastani civilians. They do not think of them. They are still basking in the glow of a very charismatic man. James may have a nuanced understanding of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He may sympathize with the civilian victims of drone, but the actual question seems utterly valid and not bigoted to me. Do you really think a high % of Americans, I mean like even a significant minority - say 5% - have spent time concerned about those Pakastani's or wondering if we are fighting that war for Taliban women or to get Al-Quiada or that, strangely enough, the liberal president may also have oil in the back of his mind like his predecessor. I don't think they are thinking of that.

 

[Doreen]

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.

Thanks, Baron. I appreciate that.

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.

Ah, come on Baron. If this was really the case, than you know what you should do. Ignore her and let your suppressed sympathy come out into the sunshine. I said that in humor, but the truth is, it is a strange thing to say

I would care more about the plight of the Palestinians if I didn't keep reading SAM's posts and getting pissed off at her and so being closed-minded about them.

You know what I mean?

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

No, prob. And as I said. You are most like her in style of anyone here. I can see you both smiling when you get in your indirect jabs, asking all those questions....come on, you two.

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

I won't. I promise not to quote this post.

 

[Doreen]

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.

But that choice does not have to be under duress, especially the kind of duress in this situation. If he had said what he thought she did wrong and asked for an apology, she has a chance to do that. He can then act as he thinks best given her response.

 

[Gustav]

james addressing tiassa.......

.....bear in mind that you'll be burning bridges by linking yourself so strongly to SAM's wagon.

yup
paramount are the vindictive grudges
the welfare of sci?
not even in the radar

james
leave
don't come back

 

[James R]

There is nothing - nothing at all - "bigoted" about the rhetoric of SAM's original statement there. It is a legitimate, pointed, and in the thread pertinent rhetorical question. It ought to be possible to post like that on this forum, without drawing down a barrage of personal attacks.

If this was a first post by a new user, fine. If this was a post by a user who posted a lot of science with a bit of occasional politics, fine. But this is from a poster who takes every opportunity to post propaganda against her pet hates - namely Americans, Jews and atheists, and by extension anybody who doesn't see those groups as homogeneous stereotypes.

the 1 mth ban was james's decision
his alone. his disingenuous plan b

by gad! i dont give a fuck what you guys have to say! sam is going down!

Yes. I said before - I take full responsibility. I believe it is good for the forum, quite apart from anything else.

 

[mordea]

basically what i get from this addled garbage is that.......pointing instances of hypocrisy to either lucy or the baron will see them backing them into a corner where they discard all pretense of an intellect and come out screeching and snapping like rabid dogs

awesome
i must praise your honesty lucy
woohoo!

Addled garbage? You're the one to talk.

Quite simply, to try and deny that S.A.M sometimes trolled would be the equivalent of shoving your head up your ass and claiming that the surroundings aren't brown. Whether her trolling merited a banning is a different but related matter.

 

[mordea]

SAM has made you indifferent to certain issues? What do you think about this? What does that mean about you? Are you saying you would have different opinions on these issues if she had acted differently?

Remember immediately after 9/11? Everyone all over the world had their eyes glued to the television for updates, and were full of sympathy for the poor Americans. And then the Americans went on and on about the event. And on and on. And on and on some more. They harped on about it until kingdom come, and even used it to justify a pre-emptive strike against a nation whose arsenal amounted to a microfart. And eventually people just rolled their eyes and changed the channel at the mention of 9/11, or even turned to criticism of the U.S.

Quite simply, beating a dead horse doesn't help your cause, it just desensitises people and gets them thinking 'Oh no, not this bullshit again.'

 

[Gustav]

Yes. I said before - I take full responsibility. I believe it is good for the forum, quite apart from anything else.

of course
this from a person who continually demonstrates he cannot reasonably interpret nor understand sam's points without distorting and twisting them to fit his own despicable agenda to ban her for good

for the good of the forum?
you lie
self serving bullshit

"..bear in mind that you'll be burning bridges by linking yourself so strongly to SAM's wagon."

see that, sci?
this is what this monster has in store for sam's supporters
hound them incessantly and watch for opportunities to ban

utter pathology and sheer megalomania

i say abandon ship
its being run into the ground by james and his fundie ilk

 

[Gustav]

Quite simply, to try and deny that S.A.M sometimes trolled would be the equivalent of shoving your head up your ass and claiming that the surroundings aren't brown.

a weak and ineffectual strawman that could only be produced by other addled brains

/spits

Whether her trolling merited a banning is a different but related matter.

you really think no one would notice the topic post, sparky.....

Was SAM banned? If so I have so say, come on grow some skin, if people don't want to read her threads then they can choose not to open them. If they don't like her posts, the put her on ignore. SAM and I have, in the past, went round and round and I don't have a single complaint.

...??

/sneer

 

[mordea]

a weak and ineffectual strawman that could only be produced by other addled brains

Strawman? Where? How? Against whom? /scoffs

you really think no one would notice the topic post, sparky.....

...??

/sneer

What were you saying about addled garbage?

 

[Trippy]

who is this we?

it is only the vindictive administrator and one other moderator that voted to perma ban her in the 2/3 majority vote

that failed
so....

the 1 mth ban was james's decision
his alone. his disingenuous plan b

by gad! i dont give a fuck what you guys have to say! sam is going down!

Two thirds, not three people voted, two of them in favour. And you're blatantly misrepresenting what was said.

 

[Trippy]

i say abandon ship

Are you planning on leading by example, or is this just more idle talk?

 

[Gustav]

Remember immediately after 9/11? ....

haha
another pathetic deflection
a bogus account of events
troll much, mr mordea?