Jesus H. Christ... otheadp... can you even wipe you'r Azz wit-out cryin for help from a mod/mommy.???
S.a.m.
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
- Status
Jesus H. Christ... otheadp... can you even wipe you'r Azz wit-out cryin for help from a mod/mommy.???
So I should be permabanned for calling you out on your bigotry???
Ot your once again mistaking your self for me. How many times have Iasked if what I am saying is false to show it? and every time you don't and attack me.
No it isn't but yours is,
probably because for a change their doing their jobs and not doing the easy way out. I have done nothing wrong.
Understandable you don't even understand you called all palestinians murderers and baby killers do I guess bad understanding of english. Now we have all ready been told to drop non sam related stuff so if you wish to continue to attack me please create a new thread.WTF is this
Why don't you collect the quotes into one post and present the context, you filthy liar? Apologize and stop spreading your lies about people.
Yes, I went through the posts of the thread you've mentioned. I scanned through the whole thread, and I must say, your hands aren't clean either. You've made quite some bold unsubstantiated statements there, too.
Huh? Did I understand this correctly? So you're saying that Palestinians are representative for all Arabs, and all Muslims out there?
Care to reformulate, because as it is I didn't understand one bit of what you just said, and I'd like to avoid any further misunderstandings.
It's an ongoing issue, not just one isolated incident.
I never claimed I didn't but unlike some of my detractors I don't pretend I'm an angel
I'll admit I kind of went a little more and am relying on ot's, cheski's, and others history of anti arab posts.
If I talk about about a certain set(all palestinians) and some makes reference to who I'm talking about(all palestinians) with out any modification to the set the set is the same.
Its not about running to mommy its about trying to use authority figures to suppress ideas.
Not a very good comparison. Buffalo was pretty much untouched for doing worse violations of the rules. than people who actually suffered mod action Hell it took months of complaints on my part about the different standards the WE and politics mods had for buffalo and me to have shit be done. Hell to this day String and James R still equate anything I have said to him to Buffalo's attacking my life style choices to help take care of my handicapped mother. Their are no standards its just done on whim and they mods consider them selves beyond reproach.
Your lack of basic literacy skills is not my problem.
You somhow misconscrewed my laffin at James R's double standard (as it pertains to lockin threds) as me bein aganst people espressin ther opinions.... but to set the record strate... i dont thank ANY thred shud be locked... an im for "everbody" bein able to freely espress therselfs... ka-peach... lol.!!! [/quote]
Bullshit, here's what you said:
I misconstrued nothing.
What sort of majority is ten percent, exactly?
Then it's incompetence.
What I have yet to get from you or any of your desperate defenders, James, is an explanation of the following:
After all, you get upset when people lie about you, even if you can't establish the lie. I've established both the misrepresentation and my problem with the idea that I wasn't clear about my reasons for issuing the original action against a member.
So how should I feel, James? What should people think? Are you dishonest or incompetent? Either way, I think your grudge against S.A.M. quite obviously colored your perception of the situation.
And I consider that decision arbitrary.
You're right. It wasn't arbitrary. It was a grudge. You are so far out of line in this it's unspeakable.
That first sentence is crap, James. You presume the worst of her, and have for a long time, even while cutting breaks for other people who behaved either in the same manner as you think she does, or worse. Furthermore, we're adjusting to a new standard in order to accommodate this.
Reported is the key word. You presumed guilt, and when that argument was over, you tried to blame other people for your colossal mistake.
I see. So a declaration of no confidence in your capacity as administrator doesn't count as protest, and links demonstrating the errors of your reasoning, as well as photographic demonstration, doesn't count as evidence.
It would be improper to suggest you're splitting hairs, James, because you missed the hair.
First of all, you are oversensitive. Secondly, I'm not sure what she did that isn't done routinely around here; namely, she seized on the implications of how you treated her. If you take a look around, implications are a big point of contention here. People don't always stop to consider the implications of their statements. And they really don't like it when other people do. You need to take a broader, more honest look at your behavior in relation to S.A.M.
James, you are lying.
The final vote was one in favor, three against, three declared abstentions, three declared "other", and broad non-participation.
What majority does one in favor out of ten votes constitute?
Fair enough. Retracted. It is well enough to say that no amount of reality or evidence could dissuade you from that one-month suspension. Then again, you don't need justification: you're an administrator. Apparently, you don't need to be honest, either.
Quit with your stupid politics, James. All I did was answer the topic question. You chose to misrepresent that action.
Or would you like to show me where I moved the discussion to the public forum?
Come on, James. Let's see what you've got. I'm getting a little ... what's the word? "Narky"? Yeah, I'm getting a little narky about your lies.
I just find the implication that a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors is an anti-Semite hilarious. I mean, I'm sure there are some Jewish individuals whose parents survived the Holocaust who are pretty fucked up in the head, but it's a counterintuitive proposition to say the least. I would expect some demonstration of how Finkelstein's terminology is anti-Semitic. You know, at the very least. Especially since one of the academic controversies he's been involved in was bucking short-term demographic trends and undermining a key Palestinian claim to Israeli land.
Or is it because S.A.M., the Muslim who disagrees with the prevailing Western conventional wisdom on Israel-Palestine issues, used Finkelstein's phrase?
All you've done in this is present links and make claims like, "SAM, ever the anti-semite, has ramped up her anti-semitism and general trolling over the past couple of days ...."
It's a fairly easy argument, but also an unreliable one: You're simply presenting threads and expecting people to read them as you do. And, given your difficulties in the issue of the three-day suspension, I find that expectation somewhat dubious. But it certainly does make it easier for you if you never bother to make the case, doesn't it?
James R said:
Then it's incompetence.
What I have yet to get from you or any of your desperate defenders, James, is an explanation of the following:
• I listed the reason for an action I took three times. The same reason was listed in our Temp Ban log, a thread specific to member behavior, and the publicly-available Ban List.
• You pointed out in your response to my challenge of your second retaliatory action against S.A.M. that I had posted in a number of threads, making the problem hard to miss.
• But you also twice misrepresented my reason for action, and used that misrepresentation as justification for your first retaliatory action against S.A.M.
• Additionally, you accused me of not doing my job for not taking equivalent action against S.A.M. based upon that misrepresentation.
I would like to know how, exactly, you screwed that up, James.
• You pointed out in your response to my challenge of your second retaliatory action against S.A.M. that I had posted in a number of threads, making the problem hard to miss.
• But you also twice misrepresented my reason for action, and used that misrepresentation as justification for your first retaliatory action against S.A.M.
• Additionally, you accused me of not doing my job for not taking equivalent action against S.A.M. based upon that misrepresentation.
I would like to know how, exactly, you screwed that up, James.
After all, you get upset when people lie about you, even if you can't establish the lie. I've established both the misrepresentation and my problem with the idea that I wasn't clear about my reasons for issuing the original action against a member.
So how should I feel, James? What should people think? Are you dishonest or incompetent? Either way, I think your grudge against S.A.M. quite obviously colored your perception of the situation.
And I consider that decision arbitrary.
You're right. It wasn't arbitrary. It was a grudge. You are so far out of line in this it's unspeakable.
That first sentence is crap, James. You presume the worst of her, and have for a long time, even while cutting breaks for other people who behaved either in the same manner as you think she does, or worse. Furthermore, we're adjusting to a new standard in order to accommodate this.
Reported is the key word. You presumed guilt, and when that argument was over, you tried to blame other people for your colossal mistake.
I see. So a declaration of no confidence in your capacity as administrator doesn't count as protest, and links demonstrating the errors of your reasoning, as well as photographic demonstration, doesn't count as evidence.
It would be improper to suggest you're splitting hairs, James, because you missed the hair.
First of all, you are oversensitive. Secondly, I'm not sure what she did that isn't done routinely around here; namely, she seized on the implications of how you treated her. If you take a look around, implications are a big point of contention here. People don't always stop to consider the implications of their statements. And they really don't like it when other people do. You need to take a broader, more honest look at your behavior in relation to S.A.M.
James, you are lying.
The final vote was one in favor, three against, three declared abstentions, three declared "other", and broad non-participation.
What majority does one in favor out of ten votes constitute?
Fair enough. Retracted. It is well enough to say that no amount of reality or evidence could dissuade you from that one-month suspension. Then again, you don't need justification: you're an administrator. Apparently, you don't need to be honest, either.
Quit with your stupid politics, James. All I did was answer the topic question. You chose to misrepresent that action.
Or would you like to show me where I moved the discussion to the public forum?
Come on, James. Let's see what you've got. I'm getting a little ... what's the word? "Narky"? Yeah, I'm getting a little narky about your lies.
I just find the implication that a Jewish son of Holocaust survivors is an anti-Semite hilarious. I mean, I'm sure there are some Jewish individuals whose parents survived the Holocaust who are pretty fucked up in the head, but it's a counterintuitive proposition to say the least. I would expect some demonstration of how Finkelstein's terminology is anti-Semitic. You know, at the very least. Especially since one of the academic controversies he's been involved in was bucking short-term demographic trends and undermining a key Palestinian claim to Israeli land.
Or is it because S.A.M., the Muslim who disagrees with the prevailing Western conventional wisdom on Israel-Palestine issues, used Finkelstein's phrase?
All you've done in this is present links and make claims like, "SAM, ever the anti-semite, has ramped up her anti-semitism and general trolling over the past couple of days ...."
It's a fairly easy argument, but also an unreliable one: You're simply presenting threads and expecting people to read them as you do. And, given your difficulties in the issue of the three-day suspension, I find that expectation somewhat dubious. But it certainly does make it easier for you if you never bother to make the case, doesn't it?
Below is you'r clame that i thank im the only 1 on this bord whos entitled to an opinion:::
Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
You somhow misconscrewed my laffin at James R's double standard (as it pertains to lockin threds) as me bein aganst people espressin ther opinions....
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Whats the reason those busy-bodys cant ignore... or not post in a thred they have no interest in... Oops... i thank i answrd my own queston... "busy-bodys"... LOL.!!!
I esplaned that what i said above was "sarcasm"... an then i set he record strate jus in case you didnt "get-it":::
"but to set the record strate... i dont thank ANY thred shud be locked... an im for "everbody" bein able to freely espress therselfs... ka-peach... lol.!!!"
Even after the esplinaton you still calme that i thank im the only 1 on this bord entitled espress an opinion... but you'r wantin that to be true dont make it so.!!!
Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
You somhow misconscrewed my laffin at James R's double standard (as it pertains to lockin threds) as me bein aganst people espressin ther opinions....
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Whats the reason those busy-bodys cant ignore... or not post in a thred they have no interest in... Oops... i thank i answrd my own queston... "busy-bodys"... LOL.!!!
I esplaned that what i said above was "sarcasm"... an then i set he record strate jus in case you didnt "get-it":::
"but to set the record strate... i dont thank ANY thred shud be locked... an im for "everbody" bein able to freely espress therselfs... ka-peach... lol.!!!"
Even after the esplinaton you still calme that i thank im the only 1 on this bord entitled espress an opinion... but you'r wantin that to be true dont make it so.!!!
Yes, but SAM 'libeled' the administrator. It's hardly surprising that James R is far more proactive in prosecuting those who clash with the authorities on this board. If you insult your co-workers, nothing would happen. If you insult your boss, well...
Also, I had a squizz through past open government threads and found that people have complaining about SAM's method of operation for years (literally). However, both James R and Bells responded in much the same manner as Tiassa still is: By disregarding the complaints as either a personality clash or 'hatred'. Seems like they only started to give a shit about SAM's trolling when they started experiencing it themselves. Up until that point SAM was an angel who could do no wrong.
Either way, I don't think it's up for argument that SAM is a proliforous poster whose method of debate can be incredibly evasive and sometimes dishonest (eg. repeating strawman once others have corrected them). But at the end of the day, it's your choice to respond. If reading her posts makes your blood boil, then *just don't read them*. Exercise some self-control and use the ignore function.
superstring01
Moderator
No, it's bias. James R starts with the axiom that S.A.M is a troublemaker (which sometimes she is!), and then interprets all complaints in that light. Therefore when he receives a complaint about S.A.M, he assumes the worst. When their is an ambiguity, he takes S.A.M's actions in bad faith.
Bells
Staff member
Considering how long you have been posting on here, dear boy, and your own bias against Sam which goes a long way back, you have a nerve.
Respect for Will cautiously expands... :m:
1. She is special, because her "truisms" cut to the bone of contemporary delusional Western thinking folk, where aforesaid are confounded that she accurately and consistently, points out the morally inappropriate. :m:
2. She is special in the fact that her individual intellect alone, outweighs the sum total of intellect on SciFi.
Why Mr. President, whatever do you mean?
superstring01
Moderator
- Status