S.a.m.

[spidergoat]

So why don't you describe the belief system she represents? Show us what you know?

Because, frankly, people spend a lot of time telling us what S.A.M. believes, and very little time paying attention to what she actually says.

...

I'm not complaining about her voicing her views on sciforums, there is nothing wrong with that. My only complaint, as I have stated, is the occasional lying and disingenuous nature of her arguments.

It is my opinion, supported by everything she has said so far, that she views the west as most Muslims do, that there is a war on Islamic people driven by greed for empire, that we don't care about innocent life, that the accidental death of a Muslim is tanamount to murder, but only when we do it, and that there is absolutely nothing about Islam that encourages violence against secular people. Terrorism is justified because we supported dictators in Islamic countries, but we are also the enemy because we removed a dictator who probably killed more Muslims than we ever did, Saddam Hussein.

Yes, SAM's brand of Islam is liberal. If this is what we can expect from moderate Islam, there isn't much hope for mutual understanding. If she lived in a land under Sharia, which is the goal of the majority of Muslims, she would likely be executed for showing her cleavage to the public. She should be careful what she wishes for.

 

[Tiassa]

I hope this isn't too ... er ... concise

It is my opinion, supported by everything she has said so far, that she views the west as most Muslims do, that there is a war on Islamic people driven by greed for empire, that we don't care about innocent life, that the accidental death of a Muslim is tanamount to murder, but only when we do it, and that there is absolutely nothing about Islam that encourages violence against secular people. Terrorism is justified because we supported dictators in Islamic countries, but we are also the enemy because we removed a dictator who probably killed more Muslims than we ever did, Saddam Hussein.

Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, SAM's brand of Islam is liberal. If this is what we can expect from moderate Islam, there isn't much hope for mutual understanding. If she lived in a land under Sharia, which is the goal of the majority of Muslims, she would likely be executed for showing her cleavage to the public. She should be careful what she wishes for.

And again.

 

[Enmos]

Is that because moderators are afraid to expose what they truly are to the 'unsuspecting public'. Politicians one and all....

No, it's just good form. If they don't other members will jump on the bandwagon and pretty soon the forum will be in chaos. Although, admittedly, it already is.

 

[Enmos]

I would have left it at my posts correcting Syz's Christmas present presumption, answering Michael's question in the present thread, and simply responding to members as I did, for instance, with Otheadp and Electric Fetus, except that James decided to bring his dishonesty public.

Now, somebody once said that he "gets a little narky" when people lie about him. I must admit that my disgust with this situation and James' conduct and character has only increased in recent days as a result of the lies he has told about me. And I have no reservations in saying that I am very, very disappointed that Plazma explicitly endorses such dishonesty.

You'll notice, for instance, that I didn't say word one about James' idiotic suggestion that we "think of this as an experiment". I mean, that's just low, and exceptionally stupid. I can think of another experiment we could try, but I sincerely doubt either Plazma or James are willing to give that one a go despite the fact that things can only get better around here if we undertook that particular adventure.

At this point, reserving responses to James' lies to our private room would only have the effect of empowering dishonesty. Or is that what my colleagues would prefer?

Because don't get me wrong. If we're going to drop the pretense of nobility and fair play, and just admit that we prefer playing the role of clueless dictators, that's one thing. If we ever decide to follow that route, I'll figure out what to do then. But as I see it, we're supposed to be fair and honest as much as we can. Unless, of course, we're James. Then we can lie about whatever we like, and suspend whoever we want for whatever reasons we care to invent, and we can expect Plazma's explicit and unwavering support.

So tell me, Enmos: If somebody lies publicly about you, will you settle it as quietly as possible in private, knowing that doing so will result in the lies never being acknowledged or corrected?

Alright, I missed James lying about you. I thought this whole thing was about S.A.M., and James demanding an apology from SAM (which, admittedly, struck me as a little out of character).
I have to admit that I'm a tad bit confused as to what the official reason of SAMs banning was. Was it only that she made up a quote by James or was that just the final straw. I was under the impression that it was the latter.

 

[spidergoat]

Thank you for proving my point.



And again.

You also employ selective attention, and listen only to those times when SAM conforms to the liberal ideals which state that mutual understanding (of irrational faith) will lead to the dissolution of conflict (and perhaps all conflicts). You readily believe the worst about our actions, and refuse to place any blame on a cult of death that divides the world into two mutually exclusive parties.

 

[ElectricFetus]

(A) I cannot agree with such a general assessment. What is your threshold for internet addiction as expressed, say, in posts per day?

You don't think 50 posts a day, ~60,000 posts, is problematic?

(B)She pushed no harder than anyone else pushes anyone else around here.

And a lot of people get banned around here, you have not noticed that have you?

(C) Pushed back? This was the internet's version of whacking her in the head with a trout for the hell of it.

Never said it was right, certainly you can interpret it as a kangaroo execution, I'm not objecting to that.

(D) A convenient, circular argument. Hardly scientific, for this alleged bastion of science called Sciforums.[/indent]

Yeah because the "About the members" forum most follow the scientific model as well, yeah right.

I'll let that part pass, as it's nonsensical and stupid.

no, no, what nonsensical about it?

Sure I can agree with that.
Now ... how do you feel about right and wrong?

Well James is certainly one of the more fair and restrained admins I have seen, but he is an admin, you think he was never going to abuse his power? HA! As much as James would like to pretend he's fair he's still susceptible to bias and corruption. Even in the extremely unlikely chance he hasn't abused his power someone like you would accuse him of it.

 

[pjdude1219]

You also employ selective attention, and listen only to those times when SAM conforms to the liberal ideals which state that mutual understanding (of irrational faith) will lead to the dissolution of conflict (and perhaps all conflicts).

in other words wah wah she called people like me out on the violence we support.

You readily believe the worst about our actions,

and they ussally are born out.

and refuse to place any blame on a cult of death that divides the world into two mutually exclusive parties.

once again the support of anti islamic bigotry on this site. You can't talk about jewish support for violence but hell implying all muslims want death and violence is perfectly ok.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

...pretty soon the forum will be in chaos. Although, admittedly, it already is.

"The forum is in chaos.???"

Drama-Queen much

:xctd:

The forum (the posters) is fine... but a little rust showin on the (behind the scenes) iron-fist an you thank the sky is fallin... lol.!!!

Go bak to FT... move som threds aroun... give a couple of warnins an all will seem rite wit the world

 

[spidergoat]

in other words wah wah she called people like me out on the violence we support. and they ussally are born out.

once again the support of anti islamic bigotry on this site. You can't talk about jewish support for violence but hell implying all muslims want death and violence is perfectly ok.

I'm opposed to most religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all rely on books that elaborate violent punishments for people who think as I do and disbelieve them. They are all responsible for unnecessary and irrational violence. I had to look it up, but the term bigot does not apply to me. It's not an irrational, but a rational dislike I have for faith and all it's derived evils.

 

[Gustav]

i'll repost #237, enmos

oh....




..i see. none of your accusations have anything to do with bigoted attitudes, right?

/flabbergasted

you are absolutely evil, james
unfit to even live let alone be a member of this forum

lets examine....

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.)

it is quite clear the rhetoric intends to invokes sympathy towards the humble peasants rather than obama.

james characterizes this effort by jay janson as...

Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.(james)

i have a really simple word to sum all of james's descriptors of the above passage........bigotry

that is exactly what sam inferred

it is bigoted to write like that. it is anti american hatred and bigotry. it is anti american propaganda that could only stem from bigoted attitudes

there is no distinction b/w the two accounts. there was no misrepresentation. there was no libel. there was however, an accurate inference of james's ranting

lemme make it simple

i see james mumble "yum" while eating an apple
i tell you that james said apples are tasty
he promptly sues me for libel asserting he never said apples were tasty

thats not operating in good faith is it?
why would one be so uncharitable?

all i did was infer "tasty" from "yum"
sam inferred "bigotry" from "Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda"

for this a permaban was sought. it failed
a mth ban was then imposed

evil much, james?

/snigger

 

[Tiassa]

This and that

You also employ selective attention, and listen only to those times when SAM conforms to the liberal ideals which state that mutual understanding (of irrational faith) will lead to the dissolution of conflict (and perhaps all conflicts). You readily believe the worst about our actions, and refuse to place any blame on a cult of death that divides the world into two mutually exclusive parties.

What sort of stupid, bigoted nonsense are you pushing?

Oh, right:

I'm bigoted against most religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all rely on books that elaborate violent punishments for people who think as I do and disbelieve them. They are all responsible for unnecessary and irrational violence.

Certainly makes it seem easier to justify your hatred.

So can I be bigoted against atheists and hold you up as an example of how they're all lazy and dishonest bigots?

I mean, fair is fair, right? Doesn't mean any of it is useful, but fair is fair.

There is a reason that I say I have no religion instead of identifying as an atheist. Your brand of intellectual sloth and moral corruption is exactly that reason: I wouldn't disgrace myself with such an identification.

• • •​

You don't think 50 posts a day, ~60,000 posts, is problematic?

As one who has occasionally devoted eight hours to a post, no. Most people around here write such short low-effort ridiculous concise posts that they could easily churn out fifty posts in less than that.

And a lot of people get banned around here, you have not noticed that have you?

Your point being?

Oh, right, a desperate straw man.

Never said it was right, certainly you can interpret it as a kangaroo execution, I'm not objecting to that.

Good for you, sweetheart.

Yeah because the "About the members" forum most follow the scientific model as well, yeah right.

Well, if you're going to pretend to have a rational point, and given that disrespect for the scientific method is so central to the administration's bogus justification, I think it's a fair consideration.

no, no, what nonsensical about it?

Presuming the truth of your argument, and then suggesting that point doesn't matter, anyway? Why waste the words?

Well James is certainly one of the more fair and restrained admins I have seen, but he is an admin, you think he was never going to abuse his power? HA! As much as James would like to pretend he's fair he's still susceptible to bias and corruption. Even in the extremely unlikely chance he hasn't abused his power someone like you would accuse him of it.

Was a time when I would have agreed with your assessment of James. But in recent months, my faith has wavered, and the three-day suspension of S.A.M. he attempted for completely bogus reasons broke my confidence in him. His continued dishonesty has only dug him a deeper hole. In my opinion, this goes well beyond the inherent biases any moderator or administrator suffers and must work against.

Think of it this way: Once upon a time, I advised my fellows of a conflict of interest pertaining to an action against a member that was becoming inevitable. This started a fucking riot.

James, on the other hand, flat-out denies his conflict of interest despite having previously fled from a response to his mischaracterizations of S.A.M. and his present unwillingness to support his accusations against her. (And let me preempt the obvious and predictable response by noting that no, presenting a few links and expecting people to interpret the contents exactly as he does is not a rational or even reasonable argument.)

And as to that last bitter, blind accusation of yours?

(chortle!)

 

[Gustav]

when you have an administrator that will wallow in the gutter in his underhand and disingenuous efforts to ban, there really is very little room for error

why does sam not know this?
serves her right for being sloppy
fucking amateur

/scorn

 

[Gustav]

The semantics of SAM's statement

are you aware she did not write that piece?

 

[spidergoat]

Makes no difference, she quoted it.

 

[spidergoat]

What sort of stupid, bigoted nonsense are you pushing?
...So can I be bigoted against atheists and hold you up as an example of how they're all lazy and dishonest bigots?

I mean, fair is fair, right? Doesn't mean any of it is useful, but fair is fair.

...brand of intellectual sloth and moral corruption is exactly that reason: I wouldn't disgrace myself with such an identification.

You resort to name-calling and call me intellectually slothful? Nice.

 

[Enmos]

"The forum is in chaos.???"

Drama-Queen much

:xctd:

No, it's an observation.

The forum (the posters) is fine... but a little rust showin on the (behind the scenes) iron-fist an you thank the sky is fallin... lol.!!!

Go bak to FT... move som threds aroun... give a couple of warnins an all will seem rite wit the world

Oh, you're one of those.

 

[Tiassa]

The futility of truth

why does sam not know this?
serves her right for being sloppy
fucking amateur

Indeed. She damn well ought to know better than to expect fair consideration at Sciforums.

i see james mumble "yum" while eating an apple
i tell you that james said apples are tasty
he promptly sues me for libel asserting he never said apples were tasty

This isn't so unusual. There are many people who simply can't cope with the implications of their outlook. Apparently, those implications are among the things they should never have to consider. You know, because that's the rational, scientific method for doing things.

for this a permaban was sought. it failed
a mth ban was then imposed

I should note explicitly that I erred in that part of my description. The month-long suspension was guaranteed at the outset. That's one of the benefits of being an administrator; you don't need to justify a damn thing.

 

[Gustav]

Indeed. She damn well ought to know better than to expect fair consideration at Sciforums.

of course
when there is a lunatic gunning for your ass, one best take precautionary measures.
a sad but necessary fact of life.
a practical consideration on her part.

I should note explicitly that I erred in that part of my description. The month-long suspension was guaranteed at the outset. That's one of the benefits of being an administrator; you don't need to justify a damn thing.

acknowledged

for this a permaban was sought. it failed
a mth ban was then imposed

the temporal account of events is still accurate

 

[Enmos]

i'll repost #237, enmos



lets examine....

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.)

it is quite clear the rhetoric intends to invokes sympathy towards the humble peasants rather than obama.

james characterizes this effort by jay janson as...

Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.(james)

i have a really simple word to sum all of james's descriptors of the above passage........bigotry

that is exactly what sam inferred

it is bigoted to write like that. it is anti american hatred and bigotry. it is anti american propaganda that could only stem from bigoted attitudes

there is no distinction b/w the two accounts. there was no misrepresentation. there was no libel. there was however, an accurate inference of james's ranting

lemme make it simple

i see james mumble "yum" while eating an apple
i tell you that james said apples are tasty
he promptly sues me for libel asserting he never said apples were tasty

thats not operating in good faith is it?
why would one be so uncharitable?

all i did was infer "tasty" from "yum"
sam inferred "bigotry" from "Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda"

for this a permaban was sought. it failed
a mth ban was then imposed

evil much, james?

/snigger

Thanks Gustav, for your presentation of the facts.
Even if SAM did commit libel it could never, in itself, be grounds for a banning. Therefore, I took James' actions towards SAM as the result of an accumulation of offenses by SAM (trolling and such).
That said, I'm not sure whether James' words can be accurately substituted by the word bigotry. Perhaps the incident stems from a misunderstanding between James and SAM.

 

[ElectricFetus]

As one who has occasionally devoted eight hours to a post, no. Most people around here write such short low-effort ridiculous concise posts that they could easily churn out fifty posts in less than that.

yeah but we don't. we don't dedicate that kind of time.

Your point being?

Oh, right, a desperate straw man.

How is that a straw man? Your arguing that she been treated different, of which I'm not actually disagreeing, but to say others are allowed to slide is going too far.

Presuming the truth of your argument, and then suggesting that point doesn't matter, anyway? Why waste the words?

Simply trying to add comfort to the events by stating that at least SAM gets something out of this that could really benefit her.

Was a time when I would have agreed with your assessment of James. But in recent months, my faith has wavered, and the three-day suspension of S.A.M. he attempted for completely bogus reasons broke my confidence in him. His continued dishonesty has only dug him a deeper hole. In my opinion, this goes well beyond the inherent biases any moderator or administrator suffers and must work against.

Well fair and restrained are relative terms, certainly if it took this long for James to snap you would have the say he has been rather restrained, second have you been around to other forums?, some forums are run by egomaniac Nazis that think they are ruling over the known universe! James by comparison is very forgiving and humble, though not as much as Porfiry.

Think of it this way: Once upon a time, I advised my fellows of a conflict of interest pertaining to an action against a member that was becoming inevitable. This started a fucking riot.

James, on the other hand, flat-out denies his conflict of interest despite having previously fled from a response to his mischaracterizations of S.A.M. and his present unwillingness to support his accusations against her. (And let me preempt the obvious and predictable response by noting that no, presenting a few links and expecting people to interpret the contents exactly as he does is not a rational or even reasonable argument.)

Oooh tell us more about sciforums politics, I love it when people talk about things as if they are important. Of course I must say I don't disagree with your stance, I was not their to see it so I can't confirm it, but its very believable for me.

And as to that last bitter, blind accusation of yours?

(chortle!)

Why thank you but it was only truthful, someone was going to accuse James of corruption, be it real or not, chances are though that the corruption was always there it was only that whistleblowers bias for certain things that made them notice it now.