S.a.m.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know, I just think it's weird when a new member seems to be so familiar with and cares about long standing sciforum issues.
 
What's new at Sciforums?

We've always had presumptuous new members, and we've almost always had sock puppets. Narrowing down from there in order to hang one particular member, however, is a bit tougher to figure.

Put together a coherent accusation, send it to the administration. That's the best I can recommend. I took a brief look into it and didn't come up with anything useful.
 
Just found this.

16 pages about Sam. She'll eat that up when she comes back. Meanwhile, the fact this one poster can generate so much material speaks volumes about her self-imposed role of agent provocateur, if you ask me. This is someone who powder shouldn't be wasted on, and yet, here we are again, talking about her. This is, what? The third or fourth time a thread about her has been started?
 
countezero said:
Just found this.

16 pages about Sam....

...the fact this one poster can generate so much material speaks volumes about her self-imposed role of agent provocateur...

...you ask me. This is someone who powder shouldn't be wasted on...
Click to expand...

The beauty of it is (what you an som others dont seem to grasp)... these 16 pages effectivly dont esist to those who ant interested... an why do you an others keep addin posts to a thred you dont thank shud esist... so you can have a new complant agans SAM... lol... when the thred reaches 17 pages.???

Mayb make up yet anuther new rule for SAM... when she does com bak... ban her agan because she caused this 16 page thred to occur :crazy:
 
Last edited:
countezero said:
Just found this.

16 pages about Sam. She'll eat that up when she comes back. Meanwhile, the fact this one poster can generate so much material speaks volumes about her self-imposed role of agent provocateur, if you ask me. This is someone who powder shouldn't be wasted on, and yet, here we are again, talking about her. This is, what? The third or fourth time a thread about her has been started?
Click to expand...

She posts like a 100 times a day, she's hard to ignore.
 
Doreen said:
SAM has made you indifferent. So you might have cared about a certain issue or group of people, but she has made you not care.

I think this is strange, especially given that you are aware that she has made you indifferent.

Then I can't see where her posts had the opposite effect. For all practical purposes you have the same effect on the world.



So SAM made you more concerned about the West?

So you know that she made you less concerned about Muslims? What do you plan to do about that?

I still think this is a strange thing to say. It is not their fault that she posted in this forum the way she did. I could imagine someone not noticing that something had desensitized them to an issue or someone's suffering. But if you know, then are you not still responsible?

My spouse was always worried about the poor. She went on and on. Now I don't care about the poor. Period?

Very strange.
Click to expand...

I plan to do nothing about the fact that I am less concerned about muslims. I am unconcerned by the fact you think my reaction 'strange', I don't find you strange but 'silly'. When I say my opinions are the same 'as before', well they are, its just that the reasoning has changed. And yes SAM has affected my world view in ways SHE would find negative.. What you think of all this is...well...really quite insignificant in my world:rolleyes:
 
spidergoat said:
She posts like a 100 times a day, she's hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

Especially when she stirs (derails) the conversation away from said topic into why America is bad, and the "palestinians" are victims, with outrageous, evil, and sweeping comments. If YOU ignore her, someone else doesn't. And before you know it the discussion is kaput. I don't call her "OCD sufferer" for nothing... Her daily posting average is a steady 55. But she posts more than that.

Re: James giving her an "ultimatum", it was more like a huge undeserved break. Instead of banning her outright, like is routinely done to other users with no freakin' warning or a chance to argue the ban, he offered her a way out. Then she kept agitating him further and not taking the chance.

She was treated differently, alright. She was discriminated FOR, not AGAINST.
 
I have to say you guys (well, some of you) are such pussies (sp.?).
SAM isn't here to defend herself and I don't think she needs anyone to stand up for her either. Her intelligence is more than some of yours combined.
 
spidergoat said:
She posts like a 100 times a day, she's hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

@ admins (Plazma [who thinks SAM is a troublemaker] and James [who thinks SAM is a prolific poster and who want the betterment for the forum as a whole], well correct me if I am mistaken about what you think): Why don't you ban EVERYONE whose average posts per day is > 5? Especially if they are below 50 years old. For heaven's sake, when are these people finding time to work? study? taking care of children? giving time for spouse??? Even old people should play with their pets/grandchild/spouses.

I personally think being banned by sciforums is not a big loss for SAM, for all you know, she might be happily playing with snow, while you are all here ranting, HAHAHAHA.. :tempted:
 
I'm not ranting, in fact I made a point that her prolific posts were reason for some restraint, but I think JamesR has made the case that the moderators have in fact done that. My point was that that same fact was the reason why issues surrounding her posts warrant such discussion.

I posted here because I wanted to confirm what the original offense was that caused JamesR to react, to confirm accusations of disingenuousness on her part, but also to say that she is a valued member in spite of that.

I also think she has better things to do, update her blog, for instance. It's rather scary to think that Sciforums represents only a fraction of her commentary.
 
spidergoat said:
I'm not ranting, in fact I made a point that her prolific posts were reason for some restraint, but I think JamesR has made the case that the moderators have in fact done that. My point was that that same fact was the reason why issues surrounding her posts warrant such discussion.
Click to expand...


can you link to this case where post count was the issue?

spidergoat said:
I posted here because I wanted to confirm what the original offense was that caused JamesR to react, to confirm accusations of disingenuousness on her part, but also to say that she is a valued member in spite of that.
Click to expand...


thanks
however...
link to offense?
link to reaction?

spidergoat said:
I also think she has better things to do, update her blog, for instance.
Click to expand...


mmm
i have fantasies too
 
spidergoat said:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*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?
Click to expand...


interesting
is it possible to evince a bias in this rhetoric?
are the semantics constructed in such a manner to give equal weight to both parties or favor one over the other?
 
LMFAO!!!! WOW! Do I see the next Supreme Court "Judges" beginning their careers?
 
ElectricFetus said:
let me tell you story of SAM: Once upon a time a internet addict came to this forum and ruled over the biology forum with intellectually stimulating threads, but then something happened, I don't know religious Islamic fundamentalism or something and then all she did was argue about the poor Palestinians who are only launching harmless rockets to show pride in their abilities and if those rockets fell on evil Israeli swine will good riddens, heck she even refused to acknowledge murdering israeli children was bad. Anyways this kind of single minded arguing about the same issue over and over is called trolling, and is not looked upon well but many either remembering the old religiously secular SAM accepted SAM change and her 50 posts a day ways, but as her addiction spiraled out of control she lost her moderatership and tried to leave in a tear filled thread forever... she lasted 48 hours while loging on to another science forum! She came back of course and kept trolling until pissing off the admin with some kind of slander and posting private messages, the admin though put it in the laps of the moderators to decide her fate, because most of them liked the old SAM she was banished for only 1 month, if she returned oh well, if not perhaps, just perhaps, she got a life.
Click to expand...


most excellent, fetus
 
Doreen said:
You think SAM has a sockpuppet that is criticizing Tiassa? That seems strange.
Click to expand...
I haven't been following that drama, I guess I'm mistaken.
Gustav said:
interesting
is it possible to evince a bias in this rhetoric?
are the semantics constructed in such a manner to give equal weight to both parties or favor one over the other?
Click to expand...

The semantics of SAM's statement are thus: There is no difference in her mind between the indiscriminate murder of non-combatants, and their deaths as an accidental by-product of a military operation. The deaths of Muslims at the hands of infidels is the same as terrorism. I suppose she stops short of trying to justify terrorism, but that is the unspoken implication.


It would be a great loss to sciforums to lose this fine specimen of Islamic culture. It is precisely this sort of belief that will mean certain death for the west if Islamists gain long-range atomic weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top