S.a.m.

[Tiassa]

Psychedelic Crack Buggers

Wow, Gustav. Now that I can see again, I confess I'm mightily impressed. I expected you to go after the buggery crack, not—

(Er ... wait ... "buggery crack" ... heh!)

—dive into psychedelia. I'll be in the corner staring at your nifty rainbow for the next little bit.

 

[superstring01]

An off topic note:

And by the way, people who actually are gay would be pretty quick to realize that when I say "gay" I'm not talking about them.

Then say something else!

Here's what bugs me the most about that statement: It presumes that "gay" or "being gay" is just the worst thing imaginable. I'm less offended when I'm called a fag (in fact, I'm not offended at all, by either comment, no matter what, so have at it), but I won't say that it doesn't annoy me a bit. At least when I'm called a "fag" the caller is about half right. 'Cause. . . I am sorta' gay, you know. All the word "fag" means in that case is that I'm some sort of "super-gay, gay guy", which, though to most non-gays, I am not; but the point still stands that I'm gay nonetheless. But when somebody else calls something "gay" it strikes to the heart of the matter: the worst possible thing you can be, is gay.

So, back to my original point. If you want to keep on using the term in a pejorative manner, be my guest. Just, don't for a second presume to know what gay (or other) people know or feel, especially when your using that assumption to justify your wording.​

~String

 

[Gustav]

whazzup, baby boy?
long time no see

 

[mordea]

But writing off his points because he is verbose is just asinine

I don't 'write off his points', because I don't know his points to begin with. My eyes just glaze over when I'm confronted with that wall of meandering text, and I skip to the next post.

But to be fair, 'verboseness' isn't the issue here. Conciseness is. One can have a long message board post while remaining rather concise, but that happens infrequently on a message board, mostly because forum posts don't merit it. On the other hand, you could write a 2000 word essay on quantum mechanics while remaining concise.

---either debate the matter with him, or stay out of the discussion.

Why should I be obligated to do that if there are other contributors to the thread? I'll just respond to individuals whose posts I can be bothered reading. Tiassa is free to make long meandering posts, and I'm free to respond to whoever I so choose.

However, I think Tiassa needs to consider the purpose of his posts. If it is to appeal to those with an opinion different to his own (and not simply to preach to the choir), than his posting style is hurting rather than helping his cause. And considering how much time he undoubtably spends writing those behemothic posts, what a dreadful shame.

I have the same problem with the first year college students I teach---they buy a $200 physics textbook and look at the pictures, skip the text and highlight all the equations. Then they wonder why they fail the test.

Regarding college, what happens when your students exceed the word limit on an essay? Do you continue reading, or take out the red marker and cross out the surplus words while deducting marks?

From my own experience, the latter always occurs. Stringent word limits are often imposed on the academic, political and working community, with the aim of trying to ensure that the author remains concise. This is done to save time, money, and brain cells.

And if you want evidence of that, check how few people discuss anything with him! Most people, as clearly seen in thread after thread, just don't want to be bothered by having to read all of Tiassa's never-ending word barrage ...which often means very freakin' little. It's just words to make him feel important and knowledgeable .....which he is not as evidenced by his posts. What he is, however, as evidenced by his posts, is self-righteous.

The ever contrary Baron Max has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I suspect Tiassa presents his opinions the way he does to make himself out as a deep thinker. While this may wow high school students and housewives, most other individuals will likely regard him as a blowhard. And discussing an issue with such an individual on a point by point basis would be a freaking nightmare, and devolve into a confused war of attrition.

 

[Gustav]

i must commend you for parading your inadequacies so honestly. well done, mordea. i suppose all can dumb down if desirous of conversing with you

Why should I be obligated to do that if there are other contributors to the thread? I'll just respond to individuals whose posts I can be bothered reading. Tiassa is free to make long meandering posts, and I'm free to respond to whoever I so choose.

you lie, boy!

For fuck's sake. If it's a core issue, can't you please condense it to a paragraph or two?

see? its not that easy, this free will thingy, when there are deep seated pathologies involved now, is there?

/chortle

 

[Asguard]

An off topic note:

Then say something else!

Here's what bugs me the most about that statement: It presumes that "gay" or "being gay" is just the worst thing imaginable. I'm less offended when I'm called a fag (in fact, I'm not offended at all, by either comment, no matter what, so have at it), but I won't say that it doesn't annoy me a bit. At least when I'm called a "fag" the caller is about half right. 'Cause. . . I am sorta' gay, you know. All the word "fag" means in that case is that I'm some sort of "super-gay, gay guy", which, though to most non-gays, I am not; but the point still stands that I'm gay nonetheless. But when somebody else calls something "gay" it strikes to the heart of the matter: the worst possible thing you can be, is gay.

So, back to my original point. If you want to keep on using the term in a pejorative manner, be my guest. Just, don't for a second presume to know what gay (or other) people know or feel, especially when your using that assumption to justify your wording.​

~String

im sorry but i think you have a snowballs chance in hell of wining that argument over the wide scale. Not that i think your wrong but people will constantly let there inner prejudes show like this. For instance what about the words "spastic" "retard" ect. Hell even "dumb" ment someone who couldnt speak yet it took on a conertation of meaning a person of low intelligence because at the time people belived that people who couldnt speak WERE low intelligence.

 

[mordea]

Over the long run, we've been able to police one another to a reasonable degree; infraction have been lifted, suspensions overturned, &c. On this occasion, though, there is virtually no avenue for recourse. This comes from the top and sets an extremely problematic precedent.

Your comment that it comes from the top enshrines what is wrong with sciforums. Certain individuals are untouchable. They have been in a position of authority for far too long and feel they can do whatever they want. The problem is compounded by the fact that the administration selects moderators with no input from regular posters. This allows for hand selection based on loyalty to the whim of the administration, rather than integrity and a willingness to apply the rules equally to all.

If the owners implemented some sort of ombudsman consisting of regular posters who monitored the actions of the moderation, then moderators may become more accountable to the community, and less likely to employ their authority in the pursuit of vendettas.

I know of one other (much larger) forum I post on that has such a system, and it does help in the protection of posters.

 

[otheadp]

An off topic note:

Then say something else!

Here's what bugs me the most about that statement: It presumes that "gay" or "being gay" is just the worst thing imaginable. I'm less offended when I'm called a fag (in fact, I'm not offended at all, by either comment, no matter what, so have at it), but I won't say that it doesn't annoy me a bit. At least when I'm called a "fag" the caller is about half right. 'Cause. . . I am sorta' gay, you know. All the word "fag" means in that case is that I'm some sort of "super-gay, gay guy", which, though to most non-gays, I am not; but the point still stands that I'm gay nonetheless. But when somebody else calls something "gay" it strikes to the heart of the matter: the worst possible thing you can be, is gay.

So, back to my original point. If you want to keep on using the term in a pejorative manner, be my guest. Just, don't for a second presume to know what gay (or other) people know or feel, especially when your using that assumption to justify your wording.​

~String

I always thought that "fag" is much more insulting than "gay". I understand when other gays call each other "fag" it's half cutesy, but when straight people call someone a "fag" then there more of the "you're homosexual" component in there than just "gay".

The word "gay" has shifted over the past few years back into the mainstream, so much so in fact, that even Hollywood stoner movies use them. If you don't want me to use it here, I won't (and I don't remember the last time I did, other than the 2 times today)... but I think you, String, know that I'm no homophobe. And if you don't know that, than I'm telling you right now. I just like to add some shit-talking to my grenades of wisdom that I throw into fags like Tiassa (I mean "fag" in the way you described it of course )

 

[cluelusshusbund]

how about we take a collection and bribe the fucker to leave?

I dont want James R to leave... that woud be almos as big a loss as SAM.!!!

To make it official:::

i voat that James R shud stay as a regular poster.!!!

 

[otheadp]

I "voat" for Gustav to be spanked.

On a serious note, to those special people who think JamesR went overboard with the nut called SAM, he personally banned me several times, and gave me a bunch of warnings via PM for posting "bad things" which were directed at SAM. I was complaining to him about double standards, and now you hystericals are saying that he has a vendetta against her...

Crazy.

 

[Tiassa]

Jews and Horses: The beginning of wisdom

I always thought that "fag" is much more insulting than "gay". I understand when other gays call each other "fag" it's half cutesy, but when straight people call someone a "fag" then there more of the "you're homosexual" component in there than just "gay".

Depends on how it's used.

Think of it this way: A Jewish person is often called a Jew; indeed, Jewish people often call themselves Jews. There is nothing offensive about that.

But, then, my ex-partner recalls a time when her father was trying to buy a horse, and another local man offered a better price. Upset about not getting the horse he wanted, her father complained that the guy "Jewed him".

Therein lies the difference.

I just like to add some shit-talking to my grenades of wisdom that I throw into fags like Tiassa

You ought to try to include some wisdom.

 

[Slysoon]

My problem with Tiassa does not stem from the length of his posts; far from it, actually. My problem with Tiassa is twofold: number one, he seems very reluctant, perhaps at times even hesitant, to reply to posts of mine which directly address him, a trend I will elaborate; number two, his posts often contain many unnecessary sections which generally consist of passionately emotive language, eloquent phrases, stories, and lyrics which do not address the topic directly or establish his position on the issue, but instead strike a chord with him, and seemingly him alone. When too great a portion of your response becomes unnecessary - unnecessary in the sense that removing said portion would not damage the content of the post's remainder, nor cloud its clarity - readers begin ignoring the post in its entirety. What resonates with the author does not necessarily resonate with the reader; incessant complaints should warrant a change in the author`s habits if indeed it is in the interests of the author to be received well by his readers and perhaps convince them of whatever he may intend.

Perhaps because I am a student of engineering, I put extra emphasis on clarity and conciseness, both for professional and non-professional writings. In the world of engineering, most people who read what you have to write will immediately seek out the key points, as documents, papers, labs, and reports are rarely ever read in their entirety. With Tiassa, it is not a matter of the length of his posts, but of their content, as I too have written many lengthy posts here myself. Although Tiassa is by far a better technical writer than me or anybody else whose posts I've read, for that matter, I still believe my posts are clearer and more readable than his, whether or not you agree with what I may have to say. I would urge Tiassa to read any post of mine and point out where I ramble, make loose and distracting references, use unnecessary phrases which serve no purpose other than adding text or appearing eloquent, use emotive language or allow emotion to dictate the direction of my writing, or answer a question or address a point in an unclear or tacitly deceiving and distracting manner.

To date, I have directly addressed points made by Tiassa on five separate occasions which were all simply ignored. I do not know the reason for this, because he seems very willing to invest great amounts of time into replying to members he admittedly believes to be stubborn, hateful, and intentionally deceitful. The five occasions are linked below:

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2288001&postcount=108

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2289154&postcount=17

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2290274&postcount=88

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2335515&postcount=13

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2373576&postcount=60

Regarding S.A.M., the ban is clearly ridiculous, but even more so arbitrary. The manner in which James R demanded a forced apology, established a time limit, and clarified repercussions she would face upon failing to apologize, especially as a reaction to such a miniscule issue, has no place amongst adults, or anybody else who does not have sand in their liberal vaginas.

 

[Tiassa]

Can't embarrass yourself badly enough on your own?

To date, I have directly addressed points made by Tiassa on five separate occasions which were all simply ignored.

Hardly. Rather, I think your defenses of bigotry and stupidity speak for themselves.

• Scapegoat Theory: Your alternate theory that anti-Semitism is the result of Jews having too many subversive ideas is a flip of the chicken and egg. Historically, the Jews have been "subversive" by simply not dying off. What's that myth about Jews and money? Well, if you don't let a people own property, they might actually find a means of accruing wealth, anyway. Additionally, as with Jews and financial institutions, "subversive" seems to be a code word for "desired". After all, the methods of them devilish Jews have become used worldwide in the financial sector. You reveal the paucity of your argument when you suggest the notion you disagree with: "... the scapegoating of one side by the other for no reason other than unexplainable, spontaneous anti-Semitism". There is nothing spontaneous about something that is over a thousand years in the making.

• "Burkagate": Your retreat into abstraction—e.g., "Sarkozy ... doesn't need to convince France's Muslim demographic or new immigrants that France offers the better deal"—ignores Sarkozy himself: "That is not the French republic's idea of women's dignity." So, yes, he does need to convince them that France offers the better deal. If we think a thing is wrong, we must be able to explain why in a way that makes sense to the intended audience. Legislating against Islam is not going to impress Muslims favorably. But ignoring this aspect in order to retreat into abstraction is just a cheap way of empowering bigotry. As long as other human beings are abstractions, and not real people, the pretense of logic is easy.

• "Burkagate" (pt. 2): To quote you:

"I would confidently raise that suggestion in that American feminism, and the role American women played in bringing about the countercultural revolution of the 1960's, have observably harmed all but a single ethnic group (Jews, and arguably East Asians) in the United States, creating a low-investment parenting tendency amongst Americans. If the American women are successful in campaigning their sexual outlooks unto the women of African and Arab tribes, the results will be similar to the low-investment parenting tendencies we see now in America."​

Yes, that's quite the proposition. Don't oppose the rape culture because African women might put less effort into motherhood. Your argument pretty much speaks for itself; any response I could have put forward would have risked blunting its edge.

• The Carolinas: Worrying about crime is one thing. Worrying about paranoid vigilantes is another thing entirely. Frankly, I thought this post of yours was rather quite stupid insofar as you completely missed the point you were addressing. A vigilante shot a man in the head in front of the victim's three year-old child because he didn't like the fact that the man was riding a bicycle with the child on that particular road. Criminals, generally, I can deal with. It's the random, self-righteous, upstanding citizens who take the law into their own hands that was being discussed there.

• Spanking and IQ: I ignored this one because your fixation on what's wrong with Jews is just a bit unhealthy. Sometimes it's best to leave the pathetic to lie in their own filth.​

There are your answers. Five times I chose to not scorch you for being a bigoted, half-witted twat, and you're welcome to resent that reserve. I'm not impressed, and I don't really give a damn.

At some point, engaging certain debate tactics is an exercise in futility. However, if you would like me to make a point in the future of informing you when you are embarrassing yourself horribly with some social disease in lieu of thinking, I can certainly oblige.

 

[Slysoon]

Tiassa

I was not looking for a response to posts I made half a dozen months ago; your chance to reply to them and read my reaction have long expired. I was instead searching for an answer as to why they were all ignored. I suggested hesitation on your part, and your snappy and predictably emotive response confirms my suggestion.

Know this, that I have refrained as of late to correcting many mistakes in your posts for fear of being ignored. Although I know very well you read everything I post, there is no satisfaction for me if you do not attempt a rebuttal, for I do enjoy a good debate. As of late my post count has dropped sharply, due to many engineering projects which have consumed my leisure time. But for sure I will target your posts yet again, as you have promised to engage yourself in future encounters. I realize you do not normally debate with members who are unconcerned with the length of your posts, and will detail with references where and how you are wrong. Keeping this in mind, I understand your difficultly in becoming accustomed to this unusual situation, although the surprise factor ought to wear off soon.

Thank you for your response, Tiassa. I would not have responded if I did not value your opinion.

 

[mordea]

i must commend you for parading your inadequacies so honestly. well done, mordea. i suppose all can dumb down if desirous of conversing with you

Ahh, I understand. In your mind, being concise = dumbing down.

you lie, boy!

see? its not that easy, this free will thingy, when there are deep seated pathologies involved now, is there?

Lies? Free will? Pathologies? You're rambling again.

 

[Tiassa]

There is a method to such madness

You're rambling again.

Yes, but he's the quickest ramble in town.

 

[mordea]

Yes, but he's the quickest ramble in town.

Hahah, yeah, I'll give him that.

 

[spidergoat]

Who is mordea? Why do we ban SAM and let her troll the boards as a sock? Jesus, she's like a cockroach.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Who is mordea?

Posibly only God an mordea knows.!!!

Why do we ban SAM and let her troll the boards as a sock?

Are you certan SAM is bak as a sock... has mordea broken any rules.???

Jesus, she's like a cockroach.

No dout SAM is a survivor... but somone makin unfounded accusatons to get a person baned is what i thank of as a cock-roach.!!!

 

[Tiassa]

Back it up

Who is mordea? Why do we ban SAM and let her troll the boards as a sock? Jesus, she's like a cockroach.

Who's the sock? Mordea? Either way, I would ask you to back your accusation.