But Sarkus hasn't finished what he wants to say yet.
Sarkus trolls a thread about abortion
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
- Status
And you're excited to see what he does have to say, so you can attack him again?
Let me preview it for you. He will tell you to go fuck yourself, and list all the ways you have been dishonest, conniving, manipulative and power hungry. He will recount earlier slights that he pointed out, and note that you have never responded to them adequately because you are a coward. He will list your lies and use that as proof that you are an inherently immoral, and that you try to use your power to shut down intelligent discussion, because you are incapable of it.
If you believe all that about yourself, then by all means, post another series of 2114 word replies, and give him the platform he wants. Try to convince him (and yourself) that you're not _really_ that bad, and that what he says is only sorta true.
If you do not believe that, then you have a choice.
1) Stop replying to him. Then the trolling ends.
2) Lock the thread. Same outcome.
I would assume you have a life outside this forum. Perhaps your time would be better spent there, rather than spending your time on someone you believe to be a troll.
Or, if you believe his assesement of you to be correct, then continue to engage him, and watch this forum become a pile of shit as others emulate you. At least it will be your pile of shit, which I guess you can claim as a win?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Indeed. That would be a pity as some of us would really rather talk about science.
Disclaimer: I know Sarkus personally (irl), and I now rarely post here because of what I see as James R's negative behaviour in discussions, this one being no exception.
I’m not, however, part of a “gang” (was there even an email to join one??), and I’m not speaking here out of friendship to Sarkus but to my own personal views, and from my own experience.
So, for those who aren't dismissing what I have to say out of hand, when I read through this most recent shitshow I could see exactly where things went south, and to me these seem important.
First, James R assumes Sarkus is replying to him in bad faith, assumes that Sarkus is “out to get him”, out for revenge for something or other (and is even trying to persuade others to that view).
Yet James R still responds.
As others have queried: why would someone respond to another person they think to be posting in bad faith?
Second, in his first reply to Sarkus, after a couple of casual ad hominems, and generally defensive responses, presumably due to the “out to get me” mindset, James R drops one ad hominem that I know would have been particularly painful to Sarkus.
While I don't believe there is any reason for James R to have known the details behind it, or the specifics as to why it would have hurt, he should have been aware that his comment, his ad hominem, had the potential to be so hurtful, given the subject matter of the thread they were in at the time.
It was, as Sarkus said, “clumsy” by James R (by which I take to mean an acknowledgement by Sarkus that there was no intent, but hurtful nonetheless), but despite that there has been no apology (and James R even later lied about what he had said (post #13), which wouldn't have helped).
Anyway, that was the point it went downhill fast, at least on Sarkus’ side.
Could Sarkus have handled it better?
Of course.
Walking away from James R’s behaviour would have been the best course, in my view.
And even before that James R should not be engaging at all with someone he considers only engages with him in bad faith, but if he does engage then not in the manner he did.
From that point on, they are both at fault.
It takes two to trash a thread (usually James R and a.n.other, or maybe that is cognitive bias on my part).
I’m not saying that nothing of what was subsequently said had merit: in my view the “list” that Sarkus put together was not created out of thin air, for example.
My solution to it, however, has been to walk away (mostly).
To Sarkus:
James R won’t change, even though he claims to be open to criticism: the same criticism has been levelled at him for years, by numerous people, and there has been no change, so why think there will ever be any?
Why push so vehemently against a firmly locked door when you can just find another room.
To James R:
If you engage, assume good faith.
That should be a fundamental standard of discussion.
If you can't bring yourself to assume it, don't engage.
Period.
Now, who’s got the application form for this “gang”?
I’m not, however, part of a “gang” (was there even an email to join one??), and I’m not speaking here out of friendship to Sarkus but to my own personal views, and from my own experience.
So, for those who aren't dismissing what I have to say out of hand, when I read through this most recent shitshow I could see exactly where things went south, and to me these seem important.
First, James R assumes Sarkus is replying to him in bad faith, assumes that Sarkus is “out to get him”, out for revenge for something or other (and is even trying to persuade others to that view).
Yet James R still responds.
As others have queried: why would someone respond to another person they think to be posting in bad faith?
Second, in his first reply to Sarkus, after a couple of casual ad hominems, and generally defensive responses, presumably due to the “out to get me” mindset, James R drops one ad hominem that I know would have been particularly painful to Sarkus.
While I don't believe there is any reason for James R to have known the details behind it, or the specifics as to why it would have hurt, he should have been aware that his comment, his ad hominem, had the potential to be so hurtful, given the subject matter of the thread they were in at the time.
It was, as Sarkus said, “clumsy” by James R (by which I take to mean an acknowledgement by Sarkus that there was no intent, but hurtful nonetheless), but despite that there has been no apology (and James R even later lied about what he had said (post #13), which wouldn't have helped).
Anyway, that was the point it went downhill fast, at least on Sarkus’ side.
Could Sarkus have handled it better?
Of course.
Walking away from James R’s behaviour would have been the best course, in my view.
And even before that James R should not be engaging at all with someone he considers only engages with him in bad faith, but if he does engage then not in the manner he did.
From that point on, they are both at fault.
It takes two to trash a thread (usually James R and a.n.other, or maybe that is cognitive bias on my part).
I’m not saying that nothing of what was subsequently said had merit: in my view the “list” that Sarkus put together was not created out of thin air, for example.
My solution to it, however, has been to walk away (mostly).
To Sarkus:
James R won’t change, even though he claims to be open to criticism: the same criticism has been levelled at him for years, by numerous people, and there has been no change, so why think there will ever be any?
Why push so vehemently against a firmly locked door when you can just find another room.
To James R:
If you engage, assume good faith.
That should be a fundamental standard of discussion.
If you can't bring yourself to assume it, don't engage.
Period.
Now, who’s got the application form for this “gang”?
Get. Out. Of. My. Head.!!
For the record: I’ve never claimed he was inherently immoral. I have questioned his morals only as part of highlighting hypocricy, sure, but I don’t recall asserting him to be inherently immoral. (His view of my morality must be a doozy, though!). Also not sure I’ve called him a coward before, but I might be wrong. Dishonest, yes, but coward, don’t think so. And I don’t think he’s power hungry. That wouldn’t be fair. There are maybe a few more I’d add to the mix (which I won’t list here). But you’re not far off.
Anyhoo, as far as I'm concerned...
this thread is now closed
Jesus, this thread really blew up while I was unconscious. (Not pertinent, but I have a "thing": I'm awake for days on end, perhaps getting an hour or two here and there, then I'm out for like 24 hours.)
Anyways (and I'm not gonna explain how "anyways" as opposed to "anyway" is sometimes acceptable again),
@JamesR:
I'm not gonna do a point a by point response here, so I'll just say this:
I initially responded for two reasons:
1. I was actually interested in where Sarkus was going with that--as you may note from my response to you in the scientism thread, these things interest me.
2. I thought your dismissal of his posts as trolling was unfair, especially as it was taking a typical abortion thread in, at least, a somewhat more interesting direction.
I see the "gang" has already been addressed by other posters, so I'll not address that.
Now the "paranoid" thing. No, I don't actually know that you are not paranoid. Sometimes, frankly, you do strike me as a bit. Perhaps it comes with the position (moderator or administrator), I don't know.
And finally, on lying and dishonesty. Now, I know you know this, but it bears saying again: dishonesty is more than just simply "telling lies". I've not said that you've told any lies, and I don't know if you have. WHat I refer to is dishonesty in a broader sense. In fact, to not acknowledge this seems a bit dishonest in itself, don't you think?
Anyways (again), I'm out.
Edit: Not sure what's up with all the colons, it just happened that way.
Anyways (and I'm not gonna explain how "anyways" as opposed to "anyway" is sometimes acceptable again),
@JamesR:
I'm not gonna do a point a by point response here, so I'll just say this:
I initially responded for two reasons:
1. I was actually interested in where Sarkus was going with that--as you may note from my response to you in the scientism thread, these things interest me.
2. I thought your dismissal of his posts as trolling was unfair, especially as it was taking a typical abortion thread in, at least, a somewhat more interesting direction.
I see the "gang" has already been addressed by other posters, so I'll not address that.
Now the "paranoid" thing. No, I don't actually know that you are not paranoid. Sometimes, frankly, you do strike me as a bit. Perhaps it comes with the position (moderator or administrator), I don't know.
And finally, on lying and dishonesty. Now, I know you know this, but it bears saying again: dishonesty is more than just simply "telling lies". I've not said that you've told any lies, and I don't know if you have. WHat I refer to is dishonesty in a broader sense. In fact, to not acknowledge this seems a bit dishonest in itself, don't you think?
Anyways (again), I'm out.
Edit: Not sure what's up with all the colons, it just happened that way.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Thanks, I am bowing out now.
A nice quote from an acquaintance the other day.
"Don't walk into a room and complain that is dark, go light a candle."
I'm off to light a few.
- Status