Aaaah James owns the forum, the only way he could lose the position is if he left it on his own accord.
S.a.m.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Aaaah James owns the forum, the only way he could lose the position is if he left it on his own accord.
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
PS
To whome it may concern:::
I am volenteerin for any administrator positons that mite open up in the near future.!!!
An that effects what i said... how.???
PS
To whome it may concern:::
I am volenteerin for any administrator positons that mite open up in the near future.!!!
An that effects what i said... how.???
If your implying an administration position might open up here soon, well... you need to stop huffing glue.
no, no I don't.
i've made the "2 accounts" suggestion numerous times.
I'm not afraid of my actions in this. How 'bout you?
Would you like me to actually repeat it? Like the part where you lied in order to justify a three-day suspension of S.A.M.?
If you want the exact words out in the open, I'm game. Unlike you, I have nothing to hide in this.
James R said:
Would you like me to actually repeat it? Like the part where you lied in order to justify a three-day suspension of S.A.M.?
If you want the exact words out in the open, I'm game. Unlike you, I have nothing to hide in this.
I prefer to be open. When I post, I always post under my usual name. I have no sock puppets. People know who they are talking to and everything is above board.
I put it to a vote; my proposal didn't go through. I didn't have to do that, but I'm content with the outcome. As far as SAM's libel is concerned, I consider that incident as no longer relevant after her month off. It would have been easier, perhaps, to apologise, but she chose the alternative. Either way, it's in the past.
I'm not putting that to a general vote at this point in time.
What principles do you think are involved here?
And the silent majority is, as usual, silent.
I really don't mind how you take them at this point. I'm not likely to change your mind, am I?
This is correct. SAM has been warned over and over again. She has had prior bans. This was simply one more episode in a pattern of behaviour.
It is very easy for members not to have the full picture regarding problem posters. They don't have to deal with the daily complaints flooding into their inbox, the private messages complaining, the constant issuing of warnings, the constant vigilance necessary to police inappropriate content in posts etc. And SAM requires constant supervision, with her 60 posts a day.
I have no financial interest in the forum. I am an administrator only so long as I have the confidence of the owners.
*sigh*
If it makes you happy.
I have nothing to hide. Post what you like, but bear in mind that you'll be burning bridges by linking yourself so strongly to SAM's wagon.
Frankly, I'm surprised at your lack of perspective on this matter, given that you normally steer a steady ship. I think you've lost a fair amount of objectivity here.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I have stomped on Sam many times for her habit of arguing disingenuously. She has done it so many times that it is long past the point of being able to excuse it as carelessness, and can only be treated as a blatant symptom of a lack of honor. On a website that is supposed to be a place of science and scholarship, that is the most egregious possible violation. I have stood up for her in the past every time her antics showed up on the Moderators board, because when she's in the proper frame of mind she can provide real value to a discussion. But she has finally tried my patience one too many times and I will no longer defend her.
Please understand that I am not objecting to the content of her posts, her religion, her politics, or anything at that level. Those are issues that bother many people but not me, even when I disagree with her. I specfically do not align with the common complaint that she pushes her anti-Israel anti-America pro-Islam agenda too caustically and starts flame wars. I have no problem with her rhetoric. When you're all alone on your side of an argument sometimes you become shrill.
My objection is to her dishonorable style of discourse, typically waiting a few weeks and then repeating an assertion that has already been disproved, in the hope that nobody will notice before she has a chance to influence our younger and more impressionable members. That is a positively wretched violation of the scientific method, and is completely unforgivable. However, most people don't notice this because they don't pay enough attention to the continuity of her posts. Even among the Moderators I have a hard time making this point. I think James might be the only one who understands what I'm talking about because he too has had to spend far too much of his limited volunteer's time and effort on Sam-watch.
But they have their own reasons for disciplining her and even though they're not my reasons, they're not wrong and I will not take her side any more.
Bells
Staff member
Oh the hilarity..
What is that smell I smell..?
Ah yes..
Bullshit.
If she "switched her outcomes to pro-American, Christian-centered jingoism", she would be Sandy or Buffalo. And we all know just how big of a supporter you are of those two. We both know that you would be running rabid, demanding she be banned for the very type of behaviour that she has been exhibiting of late. Just as you have demanded others of that view be banned in the past, present and, I expect, the future.
The god damn one sided hypocrisy is astounding. And it's source, even more so.
But hey, she's someone you like, so it's not alright, is it? It's only alright when it is someone you hate.. right?
Sam has always said that she wants the rules to be applied consistently. And they have been. She has been banned for the very type of behaviour that has seen Buffalo and co banned for the same amount in recent times.
*Sniff*..Tiassa said:
What is that smell I smell..?
Ah yes..
Bullshit.
If she "switched her outcomes to pro-American, Christian-centered jingoism", she would be Sandy or Buffalo. And we all know just how big of a supporter you are of those two. We both know that you would be running rabid, demanding she be banned for the very type of behaviour that she has been exhibiting of late. Just as you have demanded others of that view be banned in the past, present and, I expect, the future.
As opposed to Moderator hatred?
The god damn one sided hypocrisy is astounding. And it's source, even more so.
But hey, she's someone you like, so it's not alright, is it? It's only alright when it is someone you hate.. right?
Nope. At present, the very same standards applied to those you hate on this forum and have been very vocal in your desire and demands they be banned have been applied to Sam. As you are well aware. That you do not acknowledge that is dishonest on your part.
Sam has always said that she wants the rules to be applied consistently. And they have been. She has been banned for the very type of behaviour that has seen Buffalo and co banned for the same amount in recent times.
No. I think it pertains to how much you think he hates her.
Notes Around
Something about smells goes here, Bells.
Let us look at two statements. First, mine:
And yours:
Sorry, Bells, but as much respect as I have for you, if you want to talk bullshit, you're full of it. You want to talk about my part? Fine, we'll get to that in a second. However, I would first like to note how disappointed I am at the shoddy sleight you just attempted.
So skip the bullshit. Spare us all, please.
No, m'lady, it's a matter of enforcing the rules fairly, which we have not done for some time. Excuses made for white, pro-American jingoists cannot be applied to the dark-skinned, Indian Muslim. Or had you not noticed that shift in the recent backroom fight? Maybe in the future you should pay attention.
Again, spare us the bullshit, Bells. When an administrator needs to invoke new standards and lie in order to justify his actions, it seems rather quite disingenuous to say that "the very same standards" are being applied.
So address that, Bells. James lied to justify his original temporary ban of S.A.M., and he also invoked new standards that have not been applied to other people—
—such as Buffalo Roam, in the past.
If that was the case, I'm sure he could come up with something better than generalized, unsupported faery tales. So tell us, Bells, what is the character, decency, or utility of a screed like that?
Advocate different standards for different posters if you want, Bells, but don't defame yourself by lying and claiming that the rules are being applied consistently.
If this is such a problem, why is it only now that we get around to sanctioning such behavior? I've long complained about this habit in far more explicit forms than any you might construe of S.A.M., and that behavior has long been condoned by the administration and some of my fellow moderators.
So that makes two moderator endorsements of the administration's lying.
You know, I used to defend the administration on principle, but they've been steadily giving over to bullshit while paying lip service to the "scientific method". And I think when it comes to the "scientific method", the only wretched violations anyone cares to complain about are the ones they disagree with.
We'll get to that soon. You have time to go back and try to hide your words if you want.
This from someone who lied about his justification for sanction, and then tried to blame other people for his own failure? Good one, James.
I especially liked the part when you lost your vote to ban her permanently, so you sent her for a month arbitrarily.
Maybe, James, if you knew how to fucking read, and didn't get caught lying to us about your action against S.A.M., you might be able to judge my objectivity. But as it is, you just let the fucking jingos tell you what to think, and if it's S.A.M., hey, that's all the justification you need, isn't it?
After all, that was your excuse.
An Open Request to My Fellow Moderators
Anyone who thinks the rules are being applied fairly to S.A.M. I would ask to go back to the "No Confidence" thread in the Mod Lounge and review posts #5 (Tiassa) and #6 (Madanthonywayne). In both posts, some consideration is given to subtleties of phrasing, how the changing of one word here or there might have made it more clear to people.
And then, for the next month or so, count how many times you pass that over for other people. You'll lose count. Really, think about how exacting that is compared to what goes on around here every day.
And then while you're at it, review a few other things that went on in that discussion. James' explanation of how a similar hypothetical argument isn't actually similar because the original statement in question apparently lacked something conditional that it did not, in fact, lack. And, then, read Ben's similar hypothetical and ask yourself whether unprovoked assault is the same as self-defense. And then convince me that it is.
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.
Bells said:
Something about smells goes here, Bells.
Let us look at two statements. First, mine:
If she maintained her posting style and switched her outcomes to pro-American, Christian-centered jingoism, most of her detractors would celebrate her, and her posts would be considered valuable enough to offer her specific protection from the rules, as has been done for other people in the past.
And yours:
"If she "switched her outcomes to pro-American, Christian-centered jingoism", she would be Sandy or Buffalo. And we all know just how big of a supporter you are of those two. We both know that you would be running rabid, demanding she be banned for the very type of behaviour that she has been exhibiting of late. Just as you have demanded others of that view be banned in the past, present and, I expect, the future."
Sorry, Bells, but as much respect as I have for you, if you want to talk bullshit, you're full of it. You want to talk about my part? Fine, we'll get to that in a second. However, I would first like to note how disappointed I am at the shoddy sleight you just attempted.
So skip the bullshit. Spare us all, please.
No, m'lady, it's a matter of enforcing the rules fairly, which we have not done for some time. Excuses made for white, pro-American jingoists cannot be applied to the dark-skinned, Indian Muslim. Or had you not noticed that shift in the recent backroom fight? Maybe in the future you should pay attention.
Again, spare us the bullshit, Bells. When an administrator needs to invoke new standards and lie in order to justify his actions, it seems rather quite disingenuous to say that "the very same standards" are being applied.
So address that, Bells. James lied to justify his original temporary ban of S.A.M., and he also invoked new standards that have not been applied to other people—
—such as Buffalo Roam, in the past.
If that was the case, I'm sure he could come up with something better than generalized, unsupported faery tales. So tell us, Bells, what is the character, decency, or utility of a screed like that?
Advocate different standards for different posters if you want, Bells, but don't defame yourself by lying and claiming that the rules are being applied consistently.
• • •
Fraggle Rocker said:
If this is such a problem, why is it only now that we get around to sanctioning such behavior? I've long complained about this habit in far more explicit forms than any you might construe of S.A.M., and that behavior has long been condoned by the administration and some of my fellow moderators.
So that makes two moderator endorsements of the administration's lying.
You know, I used to defend the administration on principle, but they've been steadily giving over to bullshit while paying lip service to the "scientific method". And I think when it comes to the "scientific method", the only wretched violations anyone cares to complain about are the ones they disagree with.
• • •
James R said:
We'll get to that soon. You have time to go back and try to hide your words if you want.
This from someone who lied about his justification for sanction, and then tried to blame other people for his own failure? Good one, James.
I especially liked the part when you lost your vote to ban her permanently, so you sent her for a month arbitrarily.
Maybe, James, if you knew how to fucking read, and didn't get caught lying to us about your action against S.A.M., you might be able to judge my objectivity. But as it is, you just let the fucking jingos tell you what to think, and if it's S.A.M., hey, that's all the justification you need, isn't it?
After all, that was your excuse.
• • •
An Open Request to My Fellow Moderators
Anyone who thinks the rules are being applied fairly to S.A.M. I would ask to go back to the "No Confidence" thread in the Mod Lounge and review posts #5 (Tiassa) and #6 (Madanthonywayne). In both posts, some consideration is given to subtleties of phrasing, how the changing of one word here or there might have made it more clear to people.
And then, for the next month or so, count how many times you pass that over for other people. You'll lose count. Really, think about how exacting that is compared to what goes on around here every day.
And then while you're at it, review a few other things that went on in that discussion. James' explanation of how a similar hypothetical argument isn't actually similar because the original statement in question apparently lacked something conditional that it did not, in fact, lack. And, then, read Ben's similar hypothetical and ask yourself whether unprovoked assault is the same as self-defense. And then convince me that it is.
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.
Bells
Staff member
You are disappointed in me as much as I am disappointed in you.
Your demands for Sam's protection is valiant. But it is very one sided. You have failed to notice that her behaviour of late has gotten worse. No, wait, you have acknowledged it, but you seem to think that because she is Sam, she is being treated unfairly as opposed to others. She is only acting the way she has been acting because she is the victim. Maybe so. She has been persecuted for her religion, ethnicity on this forum. As much as she has persecuted others for their atheism and nationality on this forum.
Had her posts been pro-American and pro-Christian instead of what it has been, she would have been Sandy or Buffalo. Sam is, as much as you may not want to admit it, a female version of Buffalo. The only difference is that she bats for the other side, a side that you and I both support. But no matter how much I may support 'her side', I cannot discount the manner in which she does post. And that is what you cannot seem to see or maybe you are unwilling to see.
Your support of her has been along the lines of 'well others do just as bad or worse, why are we picking on her'. You have basically accused all of us who demand she changes her posting style of racism.. the constant reminders of her ethnicity and religion and your jibes that if she were pro-Jewish, pro-American, pro-Christian is quite openly accusatory. I take such claims much to heart. Personally I don't care if she believes in Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Her posts have been hateful, along with others. That I support 'her side' of the argument does not mean that I do not recognise what has become blatantly obvious.
Had you failed to notice that she supported and refused to accept bans for the 'white, pro-American jingoists', at times even going against your wishes?
The rules were not enforced fairly and now there is a change in that and it has been, as you are well aware. Those who have been pushing the 'white, pro-American jingoists' line have been banned as much as she has been banned.
Do you think that because she is Indian and non-white and Muslim, that she somehow deserves some extra protection? I disagree. I am non-white and an atheist and I do not expect or demand protection. I don't make excuses for myself, her or anyone else, regardless of their race, colour or religious beliefs.
If you act like an arse you act like an arse.
I have advocated the same treatment for Sam as applies for everyone else. Or did that fact escape you?
Ah yes. The "lie". I read through that thread and all I saw was confusion from both sides, which was apparently sorted out immediately when all became clear.
From what I could see, the temporary ban was based on confusion and the ban was lifted immediately. As he pointed out later on, he would have banned both for death threats if he had come upon it first.
You accused him of lying. I disagree.
What I do see is a lot of second guessing and abuse and finger pointing and name calling.
Frankly, what I am seeing is a bunch of grown men acting like a bunch of little boys. We've had the 'liar liar pants on fire' arguments. What is to be next? 'Your mummy is fat'?
And to her, in the past.
You tell me.
Because you seem to have a deeper understanding of the issues than I do. If I said what I thought, I would be accused of lying as well. Oh wait..
Too late.
Bells
Staff member
And now onto this, which I must admit, like your original post to Fraggle, I had to read twice because I simply could not believe what you were saying the first time..
Do you honestly think he is that type of person? Why or how could you say something like that? That kind of accusation is not only insulting, it is downright dishonest of you. You have no proof that he is like that. I have never seen him do something like that. What kind of accusation is that Tiassa?
Un-frigging-believable. What is this?
Do you honestly think he is that type of person? Why or how could you say something like that? That kind of accusation is not only insulting, it is downright dishonest of you. You have no proof that he is like that. I have never seen him do something like that. What kind of accusation is that Tiassa?
From what was obvious in that thread, no one agreed that he lied. I would suggest you go back and read what others have said in that thread.
About as much as your saying that we should have no confidence in him because you think he lied was shot down.
Now I need to ask you. What is your excuse?
Confusion? There's apparently plenty to go around.
I think you are inaccurate about this.
It was never enough for anyone else before. But now that it's S.A.M.?
Okay. Fair enough. I mean, after years of reading complaints about S.A.M., and how bigoted she is, and never seeing a coherent, useful explanation of how that bigotry works or is perceived, maybe I think the problem is other people's perception. How is it that I can contradict, correct, or fill in gaps in S.A.M.'s outlook without suffering her horrible, poisonous, bigoted wrath?
What I would definitely accuse is superficiality of perspective. Reading through even my fellow moderators' complaints about S.A.M., I'm struck by how, well, stupid it all sounds. Any given day I would presume any of you to have better reading comprehension and understanding of the issues involved than you show.
And when S.A.M.'s not the issue? That comprehension and understanding seems to return to some degree.
Actually, I am not well aware.
I think that when the standard is applied equally, people will hesitate.
Yeah, well, what other excuses do you want to make for him? It's either lying or incompetence. Or perhaps you could riddle me this:
I would much appreciate an answer to that, Bells.
And as he established by his explanation, he had no idea what he was talking about. Or did you overlook, in reading through that thread, the part where we considered examples, and I had to put the "condition" in boldface because, even though he quoted the statement in full, he judged only a part of it? Really, in what part of the English-speaking world is the word "for" not commonly used in that context?
And I might also wonder if you missed his attempt to blame other people for his "confusion".
You're right. There are no little girls taking part, are there?
I already did. You disagreed.
Oh, give it a rest, Bells. Something about people acting like children goes here. So does something about rubber-glue. And so does something about refusing to back up your argument.
So you want the analysis? It's vague, presumptuous, and mean-spirited. I don't see how a lack of detail, a presumption of sickness, and a craven need to denounce are really going to help anything. It's the kind of post exclusively intended to make the poster feel better about himself.
Your turn.
Oh, and one last question, Bells:
The thirty-day ban was retribution on behalf of James' bruised ego. Nothing more, nothing less.
Bells said:
I think you are inaccurate about this.
It was never enough for anyone else before. But now that it's S.A.M.?
Okay. Fair enough. I mean, after years of reading complaints about S.A.M., and how bigoted she is, and never seeing a coherent, useful explanation of how that bigotry works or is perceived, maybe I think the problem is other people's perception. How is it that I can contradict, correct, or fill in gaps in S.A.M.'s outlook without suffering her horrible, poisonous, bigoted wrath?
What I would definitely accuse is superficiality of perspective. Reading through even my fellow moderators' complaints about S.A.M., I'm struck by how, well, stupid it all sounds. Any given day I would presume any of you to have better reading comprehension and understanding of the issues involved than you show.
And when S.A.M.'s not the issue? That comprehension and understanding seems to return to some degree.
Actually, I am not well aware.
I think that when the standard is applied equally, people will hesitate.
Yeah, well, what other excuses do you want to make for him? It's either lying or incompetence. Or perhaps you could riddle me this:
With a moderator action clearly and consistently documented in three separate places, at least two of which James acknowledged seeing, how, exactly, could there be any "confusion"?
I would much appreciate an answer to that, Bells.
And as he established by his explanation, he had no idea what he was talking about. Or did you overlook, in reading through that thread, the part where we considered examples, and I had to put the "condition" in boldface because, even though he quoted the statement in full, he judged only a part of it? Really, in what part of the English-speaking world is the word "for" not commonly used in that context?
And I might also wonder if you missed his attempt to blame other people for his "confusion".
You're right. There are no little girls taking part, are there?
I already did. You disagreed.
Because you seem to have a deeper understanding of the issues than I do. If I said what I thought, I would be accused of lying as well. Oh wait..
Too late.
Oh, give it a rest, Bells. Something about people acting like children goes here. So does something about rubber-glue. And so does something about refusing to back up your argument.
So you want the analysis? It's vague, presumptuous, and mean-spirited. I don't see how a lack of detail, a presumption of sickness, and a craven need to denounce are really going to help anything. It's the kind of post exclusively intended to make the poster feel better about himself.
Your turn.
Oh, and one last question, Bells:
• Administrator takes action against member against whom he has a long-standing grudge.
• Action is overridden by protest and evidence.
• Administrator retracts.
• Administrator polls for permanent ban.
• Administrator loses that vote.
• Administrator enacts a thirty-day suspension, pretending the vote justifies this.
Do you see nothing odd about the sequence of events?
• Action is overridden by protest and evidence.
• Administrator retracts.
• Administrator polls for permanent ban.
• Administrator loses that vote.
• Administrator enacts a thirty-day suspension, pretending the vote justifies this.
Do you see nothing odd about the sequence of events?
The thirty-day ban was retribution on behalf of James' bruised ego. Nothing more, nothing less.
Tiassa: SAM habitually posts inflammatory remarks. They play a delicate balancing act of providing factual evidence and knowingly false conjecture - most often not even to prove their point, rather, to instigate and be generally vindictive. It doesn't matter how many times you disprove a fallacy they will surely bring it up 1 week later in a new thread. That's their personality, passive aggressive. Rarely does a single post by SAM have enough content to be worthy of a ban, however, they post 60+ times a day. If one were to compile all of the content into a single post you would have enough to ban. SAM spreads out her vitriol in different subforas with no real intent to further conversation. If they were to put all of their content into a single thread no one would ever read it, with exception to very few.
Let's take a look at their most recent threads:
Condemnation of Israel
Condemnation of the US
Condemnation of Israel
Non-Condemning Thread
Condemnation of the US
Non-Condemning Thread
Condemnation of Israel / Mocking Holocaust
Condemnation of Israel
Condemnation of Israel
This isn't even a recent development - this is their posting habits for 60 posts every single day. Does it appear to be the behavior of an objective worldly observer, or the narrowly focused tirade of a bigoted individual?
When does a 'differing world view' become outright anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, that is...opposed to pro-'Whatever SAM Is'. Can a persons world view be defined as 'anti-X'? If so - does the rest of the world (or forum) have the right be pro-pro-people and anti-anti-people?
In your eyes this ban is wrong because the specific offense you've deemed unworthy of the punishment. Did Al Capone deserve his punishment for Tax evasion? Did OJ deserve the punishment for his last crime? If you say no - then I don't think many people in the US really care about your opinion.
If you respond with a typical Tiassa style 9 page response with annotated bibliography, you can forget about a rebuttal from me.
Let's take a look at their most recent threads:
Condemnation of Israel
Condemnation of the US
Condemnation of Israel
Non-Condemning Thread
Condemnation of the US
Non-Condemning Thread
Condemnation of Israel / Mocking Holocaust
Condemnation of Israel
Condemnation of Israel
This isn't even a recent development - this is their posting habits for 60 posts every single day. Does it appear to be the behavior of an objective worldly observer, or the narrowly focused tirade of a bigoted individual?
When does a 'differing world view' become outright anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, that is...opposed to pro-'Whatever SAM Is'. Can a persons world view be defined as 'anti-X'? If so - does the rest of the world (or forum) have the right be pro-pro-people and anti-anti-people?
In your eyes this ban is wrong because the specific offense you've deemed unworthy of the punishment. Did Al Capone deserve his punishment for Tax evasion? Did OJ deserve the punishment for his last crime? If you say no - then I don't think many people in the US really care about your opinion.
If you respond with a typical Tiassa style 9 page response with annotated bibliography, you can forget about a rebuttal from me.
Bells
Staff member
You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine.
What about it?
She may prove to be the catalyst.
You have chosen to overlook a lot of it. And that is your choice.
Her arguments of late have been akin to the type of bigotry or racism where someone makes a racist comment in front of someone of colour and they say 'oh, I don't mean you, you're not like that'. If that someone is happy to accept that, then that is fine. You are the accepting person in that example. I for one am done accepting it.
Do you think bigotry is only something that up to individual perception? So if someone feels aggrieved or feels that another is acting like a bigot, it is only their perception that makes it so and is not really bigotry?
Just as they might think that your taking up the sword and white horse is just as stupid. But you are right.
I am sorry that we do not have your level of intelligence, reading comprehension or understanding.
So we've gone from 'you're a liar' to 'you're too stupid to understand' now?
We are all blind to some degree when it comes to certain posters. Most of us, however, are able to put whatever bias aside and if we cannot, ask another to act or ask for advice or some guidance. But when it comes to Sam, we are simply not allowed to. If we do, we are branded as lying, racist and stupid.
Isn't that how it has been going of late?
Look at the ban thread. See how often others have been banned for longer for much less.
Like you are hesitating when Sam has been banned?
Why should I bother? I apparently lack the reading comprehension and understanding to be able to give a cohesive answer.
Looking at what occured, yes, there obviously was confusion, as others have stated in that particular thread. Different perceptions..
Unless the rest of us are completely incompetent?
The whole issue was confusing. And as others stated, it is easy to see how and why he was confused.
As you well know, I have kept out of it for the most part. Unless one of you has started dressing in baby doll dresses and wearing pigtails, one could say no. But the last two weeks or more, I pretty much have kept out of it.
And? I am allowed to have my opinions. I know I lack understanding and am apparently unable to read and comprehend and am also a liar and a bigot, I am still entitled to my opinions and yes, disagree with you on this.
How far do you want me to go back?
Should I go back to when she started to post obsessively about atheists, Israel and the dreaded Jews? How about we look at something a bit more recent? It really becomes ridiculous by page 4.
That is just one example.
I take it you did not read the final paragraph in the OP in that thread where he made his intention quite clear that if the votes was not a 2/3 majority for a permanent ban, then it would be a 1 month ban for what went on in those threads (which were stated in the OP)?
Last edited:
Your one of the last people here to complain about inflammatory remarks. Only difference between you and sam is Sam smart enough to be successful at it. You who have flaunted rules about altering peoples names are going to complain that this is just finally someone having the rules catch up to them.( incidently something James ignored) You who attacked christianity while have zero fucking clue of what you were talking about while at the same time whining about complaining about your faith without understanding it. You who have benifited from the mods allowing people to shit on islam and arabs at will are seriously going to complain about someone else. Self reflection is a good thing try it.
At least SOMEONE gets it.
It's a long pattern of behaviour that was reprimanded dozens of times by dozens of moderators and not just James R, though he is taking responsibility.
Ultimately, S.A.M. chose her own path and it just kind of bulldozed a lot of good conversations into the ground. She trolls, preaches, refuses to read or admit she might be wrong. She was trolling alot. Building entire strawmen armies and repeating the same conversations, no matter what the OP was to turn it towards what she wanted to talk about... mainly the Palestinian/Israel issues but also rallying against atheists in general and Jewish people in general. Stereotyping and spreading hatred towards those groups.
You can't ignore someone who posts so prolifically so much vitriol towards certain groups of people in so many threads. When she can stay on topic, I like her posts, but the majority of the time she does NOT and she causes a lot of problems.
This is hatred based, but not from James R. She had a choice to temper her hatred and trolling, and did not do so. A one month ban was the result and was definitely warranted despite some of you getting your collective panties in a bunch. Get over it. Go smoke a joint. Go fuck someone you pretend to like... whatever. We've spent WAY too much time on this whole god damned issue.
- Status