Should Racism be tolerated in these forums?

Should Racism be tolerated on these forums?


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
S.A.M:
Anyone who thinks I am into ass kissing is in for a rude awakening.

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.

I can be loyal to my friends

Which one... James R or spurious? Or Bells?

without requiring myself to be blind to their weaknesses.

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.

Interesting how some people jump at the opportunity to create divisiveness

Is that an admission that cliques do exist?

and sow conflict.

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.
 
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.

Squirm? lmao.

:yawn:
oops, still no one cares about your opinion. run along now, there's a good boy.
 
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?
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.

Shall I go back and delete every single post where I did defend you and stick up for you, only to cop a crap load of abuse from those who were baying for your blood, just so you can convince yourself and others of that?

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.
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 of course it is easier to make me say something nasty and get one of your buddies to ban me.
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.

way to go. You have proven once more my point. you cannot be trusted with the tool of 'racism elimination'.
And you have proven you simply cannot be trusted.

mountainhare said:
Look how well you treat monkey now that he isn't a part of your little clique.
Oh, you don't know the half of it mountain.

Meh.. now I am going to bed..
 
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?

This is hardly on topic. Are you trying to get me banned by forcing me to make off topic remarks?

Hence I will refrain from commenting on these topics in this thread.

And I would appreciate it if moderators would stop luring 'problem-posters' off on tangents so that colleagues have ample opportunity to exert their dubious ambitions. Especially since the moderators who lure people on a tangent offer no protection from the the negative influences of their peers.

Same for Bells.

You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
smile.gif
 
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'.
 
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?

Forget it Sam. I give up.



And to the other moderators and admin out there, please do not ban him over this. I am the one who led him to this little bit of honesty.

That's it for me now in regards to this cause. He's not worth my effort anymore.
 
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'.

Curious aren't we? If I have anything to say to my friends, I tell them.

You don't count.
 
Scenario.

A man likes to have a game of chess, so he starts playing with a few friends
in a pub on a Saturday afternoon. After a while there are nine or ten people and
an impromptu "chess club" forms.
In time, there are such a large group of people that it is difficult for him to
plan all the games, and he decides to have a chess club committee.

All they have to do is to set up a league, and generally
make life more comfortable for the players, but is this all they do?
No. Committees are never content with this.

Fairly soon there are notices all over the walls of the room they play in.
Rules about size of chess sets, acceptable timing clocks, entrance requirements,
,rules of conduct and dress etc etc.

Some of the older members are a bit peeved about this,
but the committe says the rules are for the good of all
and while they would be sad to see them leave
if they don't like it there are other chess clubs around.


Remind you of anywhere?
 
I see you've been to other science forums. Dare to compare the tolerance for racists? :)
 
I see you've been to other science forums. Dare to compare the tolerance for racists? :)
:confused:

I'm not sure if that was an answer to my post,
but unlike you I did not abstain on this vote.
If they are racists, we don't want them.

CHUCK THEM OUT!
 
Dr Watson doesn't seem to mind it the old curmudgeon!

Ah but he has a vested interest. And besides he can be excessively pragmatic when necessary.

http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=245
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."

And as a man who knows that the superficial can be easily manipulated to conceal the essence, he has no equal.
 
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.

Yes horribly familiar that 'skill'.

The post where I actually stated my opinion on this was deleted so I will re-iterate. Racism should not be tolerated but talking about it should.
 
I still find it slightly disturbing that there are no qualified people on the moderator team who can actually distinguish between racism and science.

What a load of crap.

'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.

You need to study what happened from 1933 to 1945 in Germany. Clearly, you have no idea.

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.

1. I have not "targeted" spuriousmonkey.
2. I have never treated spuriousmonkey unfairly. Get some perspective.
 
i think we should get along
we have been friends for ages
bygones be bygones please
i insist

mountainhare too

/pleads
 
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.

reported!!!

What a load of crap. - vulgar language!

rest off topic!

Try to not ruin a thread!
smile.gif


Plazma warned us all to keep this thread clean. That's not just a warning for the members I assume.

ps -
oh yeah..and insulting member. I do have an idea what happened during WW2.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top