Hey you won me over.
S.a.m.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Hey you won me over.
I thought it was fun to see how many posts a thread could get until American or Israeli atrocities were pointed out with a roll of the eyes smiley. It brightened my day.
For the record it was 3...three posts.
For the record it was 3...three posts.
Why "arguing disingenuously"?
Prove that using Schopenhauer's stratagems is disingenuous.
That's right, all you have got to fall back on is a burgeois "that's just not the way to do things".
I appreciate SAM precisely for her manner of arguing: with it, she exposes the smug, complacent, intellectually lazy forum myth that worthy things can be accomplished merely with discussion and debate.
Yet she has over 60,000 posts? :shrug:
It would seem she feels that things can be accomplished with debate, or at least the derailing of it.
fixed
kmguru
Staff member
With all the fights going on among each other, and hurt feelings, Sciforums will never be the same. The bar fight is now a street fight. Time to gather around and witness the commotion. Pretty soon people forget what they are fighting about. So far I have not seen any specific lies quoted (too lazy to dig up) or what is at the root cause such that other members do not transgress these activities.
I think we should reserve our outbursts to perm-bans if done improperly. If we micromanage the watchers, then the watchers will get sloppy and afraid to take action.
The best solution is for the moderators to discuss issues among themselves and do the needful, which was done in this case. In the good old days, we PMed each other before taking drastic actions.
Everyone should have learned the lessons by now. There is no reason to fight among ourselves and create permanent ignore lists...
I vote for Peace.
I think we should reserve our outbursts to perm-bans if done improperly. If we micromanage the watchers, then the watchers will get sloppy and afraid to take action.
The best solution is for the moderators to discuss issues among themselves and do the needful, which was done in this case. In the good old days, we PMed each other before taking drastic actions.
Everyone should have learned the lessons by now. There is no reason to fight among ourselves and create permanent ignore lists...
I vote for Peace.
Remenber when you was follerin me aroun... callin me a sock-puppit (of i forget who???)... an tryin to convince other people that i was a sock-puppet... how woud you label somone who does that.???
BTW... you have yet to apologize for those un-founded accusatons... how woud you like to have 24 houres to do so or be perma-baned.???
Well im American AN Atheist... 2 catagories at the top of SAMs suposed "hit-list"... lol... so how is it that i dont have a prollem wit sam???... well a few reasons is... i enjoy hearin opinions from diferent people aroun the world... i dont have a thin skin or i woudnt be in an "adult" forum... an in my book the less censorship the beter.!!!
Well... aparently YOU cant ignore people who post stuff you dont want to read... but thats a personal issue... not SAMs fault.!!!
Personaly... i dont have a prollem ignorin people i dont want to read... an i thank people who ant mature enuff to do so shudnt be in an adult forum... much less keep sendin in complants so the administraters will hold ther hands... an keep pushin administraters for the "final-soluton"... of ban Ban PERMA-BAN.!!!
For sure much time has been spent on this hole Godamed "non-issue"... caused by whiners who cant tolerate free-speech if it causes them to take a mor objective look at ther lilly-pure existence.!!!
the funny thing is while merely question that the current narrative that supports the pro jewish/Israeli point of view gets banned while people like otheadp and cheski get to call all arabs and muslims murderers, baby killers, evil, and unreasionally hateful and you get cat warned for abusing the report function for reporting them and they don't get touched. occasionally I have seen someone get nailed for it ussually on the end of debate of how the mods treat comments against jews/Israel and how they treat Islam/abab/arab countries.
Last edited:
I don't post inflammatory remarks and I didn't complain about Christians. I don't even understand what "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." means. Are you saying I don't know what my faith is...or I don't know...what is? Are you serious food, you know more about the J than I do? How did I benefit?
pjdude you're an insane person, stop following all of my posts and harassing me with hardly legible inane statements.
This right here is Libel - and that's why SAM got banned. I have never done any of that before, you're lying.
Even in her absence, she manages to make people argue with each others about her. Amazing.
I think of her like a train wreck, and like all train wrecks she causes much conversation.
this statement is false, it must be.
both my general practitioner and specialist are muslims and i'm not dead.
the specialist even gave me a copy of the koran from his waiting room because i asked for it.
so, ALL muslims aren't murderers and at least some are downright generous.
one other thing, my general practitioner seems to be very well educated and he takes a genuine interest in my well being.
So your constant implications rhat muslims are inherently violaent and bad aren't inflammatory?
So you didn't state that christians have a holiday sole devoted to the rejection of Juadiasm.
IT means you hypocrite.
No I am saying while complaining about people thinking they knew more about your faith than you did you did the same thing.
and how many times have I asked you not to call me that. Still a troll at heart.
No being punished for rule breaking.
I am perfectly sane. and your personal attacks against me are old and stale.
I'm not
You are a piece of work You who harassed me with trolling public messages. And my statements are neither illegible nor inane which. My posts are always relevant to what I'm replying too and just because you don't understand doesn't mean they aren legible. Most of the smarter people here don't seem to have a problem knowing what I'm saying.
First off I didn't say you personally did but people like you otheadp have which means all I have to do is find a statement by you, him, or someone like the 2 of you. Its true and its not a malicious intent to hurt your reputation. and bullshit cheski your one of the top people claiming muslims are inherently violent.
Really? I averaged it out at 1.5, but with 100+ posts a day and no life it's to be expected.
Anyways after reading that post I couldn't resist a comment. But to say what I originally came in here to say: can we close this thread or at the least let it die? Is there really any point dedicating another 5+ pages to her? Don't you people have lives? :shrug:
I expect the next 6 posts to consist purely and only of the word "agreed".
Justify your claims with citations or I will report you for libel.
For example: Was someone fairly or unfairly banned seems to be a number of people's issue. Or people saying why they like her, or her posts, or her presence. You are painting this as people think she is indispensible to the forums. That is an attempt to make people look silly. It is not an assertion anyone made. It is a mild libel aimed broadly.
Yes, but that point is irrelevent to the issue of how you are making up the position of people who are not being silent.
I said
IOW I was describing the posts you said indicated people were saying she was indispensible, which they were not. You used this point as a segue to a comment about the silent majority, which is certainly an issue you could raise, but not relevent to the point I made.
Not the point. The point is that you are attacking people you disagree with by 1) saying they are asserting something they are not - the indispensibility issue and 2) saying they are whining, an unnecessary ad hom.
For some reason Their posts have to have this silly assumption - she is indispensible, which they do not - or their act is whining, which they are not.
If you have objections to what they are saying, well, fine. But there is no need to try to make them look silly by hallucinating an assertion and no need to use ad hom interpretations that would equally apply to your posts.
Last edited:
- Status