You're getting a bit annoyed? Really? Then how should I feel?
James R said:
What lies? I ignored your previous attack on me as a liar and hypocrite because I think you're blowing this thing out of all proportion and you've lost perspective. But now I think I'd like you to specify what supposed lies you're talking about, exactly. I'm not really in the business of telling lies, and I don't see why there would be any motivation for me to do so here. I believe all the relevant facts are right here for anybody to look at.
I'm starting to get a bit annoyed by your accusations, I must say, though I'm trying to be tolerant in the hopes you'll work it out of your system and return to some normality.
You
twice misrepresented my reason for suspending FellowTraveler in order to justify your attempted three-day suspension of S.A.M. I have asked you, Bells, and our colleagues in general, for some explanation of just how you managed to fuck that up so badly, and as yet no answer is forthcoming.
In defending your decision, you misrepresented my defense of S.A.M.
In attempting to brush aside the public discussion, you falsely accused me of bringing a moderators' discussion to the public forum.
Now then, I will ask you specifically:
Are you willing to bring the text of the moderators' discussion to the public?
Furthermore, I consider your appeal that I should specify the lies I'm talking about to be quite dishonest, as I have, in the more recent posts, answered people's questions by bringing some detail to those accusations.
Additionally, you misrepresented S.A.M.'s alleged threat in attempting to ban her for three days.
So don't sit there and tell me you're getting a bit annoyed by my accusations when you refuse to answer them, and insist on continuing in your dishonesty.
I don't think so. In fact, I've noticed an increase in new people posting on the forums since SAM has been gone. Now, maybe that's just my perception, but I think it's possible that without SAM stamping her mark all over the place perhaps people feel more inclined to contribute.
Now
that is some scientific science.
We'll await your peer-reviewed statistical analysis, which I'm sure, in this bastion of science, is very soon forthcoming.
Instead of talking around a point, why not be specific? I have no idea what this "experiment" is that you're talking about. Is it banning other members? Removing me as an administrator? Or what?
I'm sorry, but I am already forbidden by administrative decree (Plazma) from being more specific. If you can't figure it out, well, one of you will have to unlock that fetter.
As things stand, this is little more than a substance-free personal attack, both on myself and Plazma.
Yes, James, that's all there is to it? What? You don't notice the summaries of the situation I've posted, but you've focused on one paragraph?
Get honest.
The incident you refer to was an honest misinterpretation that I corrected after it had been pointed out to me. The net effect at the time was that SAM was banned for perhaps 8-12 hours. I apologised to her at the time.
And then you blamed your error on someone else. Not exactly genuine.
SAM's current ban, however, is no mistake.
Says you, who as far as I'm concerned has
zero credibility on the issue.
I think you give people little credit.
I'm sorry, James, but posting a few links and expecting everyone to perceive what you do just doesn't make a good argument. How many times have you, or I, or any of us, looked into accusations flying back and forth and found them inaccurate? Such is the case with you. Like in September, when I looked up your list of accusations and responded, and the best you could come up with was a casual dismissal buried in a response ostensibly intended for another member but, rather, in practice, played to the gallery.
I am quite sure that some people have grudges against SAM for whatever reason, and are happy to see her take a break for any reason.
And yet, as you showed with the three-day issue, you're happy to follow. Remember? We were to note that the main problem was not
your misunderstanding, but someone else's?
It's never your fault, is it, James?
Also, I do not think it can automatically be assumed that SAM's detractors and my supporters are an identical group, or vice-versa.
If you could have made some sort of rational argument explaining what you perceived in the threads you listed, that might have been one thing, but I have yet to see
anybody's explanation in support of the accusation.
It's all very well to dress up SAM's statement about me in flowery language in an effort to make it seem noble, but the simple fact is that SAM lied about what I wrote, attributing statements to me that I never made. I gave her ample opportunity to apologise. I discussed the matter with her publically. The record is there for anybody who is interested. I have been above board at all times.
If that constitutes an actionable lie, James, how many people are in on their way out now? You appear to have failed to account for the broader implications of the standard you invoked. See
#367 above.
One thing I
don't get, James, is how you can continue to lie to us. A substance-free attack against you and Plazma? I have the facts on my side. Your misrepresentations. Plazma's endorsement. Who's going to ban you for lying about people, James? And will that happen if I don't get a sincere apology from you in twenty-four hours?
Of course not.
If you would like to put this accusation of lying to rest, I would propose the following: Copy the "no confidence" thread into a publicly-viewable subforum, locked and in its entirety, and I'm happy to duel it out with you.
Of course, given how people responded when I called Baron Max my least favorite troll, I can only wonder what damage some of the rhetoric in that thread will cause. Who knows? Maybe because it's S.A.M., nobody will care.
You're not above board, James. You were even dishonest in that response.
