Heh, that one covers a multitude of sins.
I have no weaknesses other then that I am too sexy.
Anyone who thinks I am into ass kissing is in for a rude awakening.
I can be loyal to my friends
without requiring myself to be blind to their weaknesses.
Interesting how some people jump at the opportunity to create divisiveness
and sow conflict.
this one probably will get me banned.
you know...trolling.
S.A.M:
So you mean to tell me that you didn't form 'friendships' with the most influential individuals, and gain entrance to their little cliques, by kissing ass? If you managed to achieve this by not kissing ass, despite being a rather recent poster on sciforums, you must be pretty charismatic. But given the way I've seen you behave, I'm going to accept the former explaination of kissing ass.
Which one... James R or spurious? Or Bells?
Funny. For months, you never commented once on what Bells and James R referred to as 'spuriousmonkey's trolling'. It's only recently that you started to get shitty at him.
Is that an admission that cliques do exist?
I don't sow conflict, although I do enjoy pointing out the bullshit of others! It's fun to watch you squirm, S.A.M.
Funnily enough, I actually expected you would feel amusement at the thought of someone hacking my kids to pieces. Whatever rocks your boat primate. I never expected your pity or understanding because it is fairly obvious to those who knew you way back when and know you and see you now, that you are simply incapable of it.Ah...typical moderator behaviour.
You assume motive. The motive was to show how you behave like a little baby. still.
But indeed I felt amusement. Certainly.
After all you turned into a complete **** and why not I not be amused at your misfortunes.
You reap what you sow after all.
I have never seen you stand up for friends. Why expect me to feel pity for someone like you?
I was responding to the off topic comment you made. You remember? Where you virtually blamed us for using racism as a moderating tool to ban indiscriminately. I admit this thread has now drifted off topic.But that's all a tangent. It's maybe better to show the proper example, you being a mod and all, and actually keep on topic, instead of always trying to find a personal flaw in a person.
That's the thing monkey. I don't need to make you say anything. You do it quite well all on your very own. As to getting the others to ban you? What? Do you think we're having a little pow wow and this is all some contrived plan to get you? Don't be so paranoid. I don't need to get anyone to ban you monkey. If I had wanted to ban you, I'd have done so already. I don't expect nor do I want anyone to ban you over this. After all, what is a discussion between ***** if one gets kicked from it.but of course it is easier to make me say something nasty and get one of your buddies to ban me.
And you have proven you simply cannot be trusted.way to go. You have proven once more my point. you cannot be trusted with the tool of 'racism elimination'.
Oh, you don't know the half of it mountain.mountainhare said:Look how well you treat monkey now that he isn't a part of your little clique.
Feeling a little raw are we?
Why not look beyond the words to the sentiment? Bells is trying to say something, but are you listening?
Feeling a little raw are we?
Why not look beyond the words to the sentiment? Bells is trying to say something, but are you listening?
I'm a very good boy, S.A.M. You see, I understand the concept of 'loyalty'.
If you had been a loyal friend to spurious, you would have denounced James R's unfair targeting of spurious, and told him to stick his moderator position up his ass.
If you had been a loyal friend to James R and the rest of the mod squad, you would have condemned spurious's 'trolling', told him to stick his mod position up his ass, and upheld your moderator duties when spurious' buddies came to cause trouble.
But you did neither. You didn't pick a side. You stayed strangely silent on the issue, while exploiting both sides. I saw no attempt at mediation. For all your criticism of the West, you sure are fantastic at behaving like a stereotypical Western diplomat.
I see that you've been working on Bells, using the good ole 'victim complex' routine. No doubt the combined criticism by spurious and myself will bring Bells a runnin', with accusations of 'lynching'.
I see you've been to other science forums. Dare to compare the tolerance for racists?
Dr Watson doesn't seem to mind it the old curmudgeon!
Discussion of this agenda is something Watson is not interested in conducting, whether it's with a journalist or with Congress. "I'm afraid of asking people what they think," he admitted in 1998. "Don't ask Congress to approve it. Just ask them for the money to help their constituents. That's what they want ... . Frankly, they would care much more about having their relatives not sick than they do about ethics and principles. We can talk principles forever, but what the public actually wants is not to be sick. And if we help them not be sick, they'll be on our side."
Once again, treating genetic illness is as much a ploy as it is a therapeutic achievement: If Watson and friends keep our DNA trains running on time, the argument goes, then we'll let them proceed with germline genetic enhancements. Not that Watson has ever put much stock in "ethics." At last month's NIH symposium honoring Watson, he was hailed for having proposed that 3 percent of the human genome project budget be devoted to exploring the ethical, legal and social implications of the research.
No one, however, bothered to mention legal scholar Lori Andrews' witnessing of Watson explaining his real agenda in setting up a bioethics component of the genome project. "I wanted a group that would talk and talk and never get anything done," Andrews quotes Watson as telling a meeting. "And if they did do something, I wanted them to get it wrong. I wanted as its head Shirley Temple Black."
Since re-engineering humans according to Watson's program arguably not only affects all future generations but at least theoretically raises the prospects of altering the species itself, some would claim that this is a choice for the global village of humanity to make, not individuals or even nations. Needless to say, this idea is repellant to Watson. "I think it would be a complete disaster to try and get an international agreement," he asserted. "You end up with the lowest possible denominator. Agreement among all the different religious groups would be impossible. About all they'd agree upon is that they should allow us to breathe air. ... I think our hope is to stay away from regulation and laws whenever possible."
Ah but he has a vested interest. And besides he can be excessively pragmatic when necessary.
http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=245
And as a man who knows that the superficial can be easily manipulated to conceal the essence, he has no equal.
I still find it slightly disturbing that there are no qualified people on the moderator team who can actually distinguish between racism and science.
'Racists' are not a disruptive influence. It is the posters who respond to them by making a mountain out of a molehill who are the disruptive influence. I think that the 'anti-racists' believe that if a few individuals start making negative observations about certain races or cultures (or any 'vulnerable group', as they like to call them), a whole scale genocide is just around the corner.
If you had been a loyal friend to spurious, you would have denounced James R's unfair targeting of spurious, and told him to stick his moderator position up his ass.
What a load of crap.
You need to study what happened from 1933 to 1945 in Germany. Clearly, you have no idea.
1. I have not "targeted" spuriousmonkey.
2. I have never treated spuriousmonkey unfairly. Get some perspective.