Strip mod status/ban WellCookedFetus
- Thread starter Mr. Chips
- Start date
- Status
Nope, not thought crimes but "and endorsement of harassing members off site" which is the more serious allegation but why should you care? You're just a petty little guy seeking the disaffected teen-ager and helping them to be crass and asocial for your own dysfunctional contribution to anti-science, this misnamed forum, your pretense at self-worth.
Bells
Staff member
Really? What about the ones who didn't vote for him? Should we now be blaming those who did vote for him?Porfiry said:
I know! How about we just track all the mods down and call them up to voice our discontent about anything they do that we find annoying! After all, all the mods put their names down for the positions. They'd have no one to blame but themselves.
That's just weak Porf. Real weak.
It is all very sad.
At least I have a life besides sciforums, although I am a post whore.
At least I have a life besides sciforums, although I am a post whore.
to think I could be banished for the mere accusation of a crime. Hey everyone Porfiry made love to a goat, I swear he did as I saw it with my own eyes, lets vote him off and get this forum close!
You people that were not please with my election or have a grudge against me now jump on this chance: "yep fetus is guilty lets banish him!" talk about playing dirty.
You people that were not please with my election or have a grudge against me now jump on this chance: "yep fetus is guilty lets banish him!" talk about playing dirty.
Whether or not I believe WCF telephoned or harassed PS or not is irrelevent to the fact that PS provided no evidence to his claim. Its clear that the two dislike each other and therefore equally likely that PS concocted the claim as a method of attack/harassment of his own. Indeed, its also very possible that another member of SciForums made the call after reading his personal info, which is still available in the original thread as a quote posted by Paul Samual of James R.
Any vote other than the first is illogical. I must say, I'm not surprised to see who voted for the most extreme measures: evidence has never been a concern of at least one of these voting members.
Any vote other than the first is illogical. I must say, I'm not surprised to see who voted for the most extreme measures: evidence has never been a concern of at least one of these voting members.
Bells
Staff member
On the contrary. I voted as I did due to the fact that WCF admitted to it all. That was of course before he retracted his little confession. Or was I not supposed to have believed him when he admitted to it and called him a liar? His confession is not evidence enough for you at the time? That added to the circumstantial evidence already at hand? In law Walker, a confession usually seals your fate.SkinWalker said:
Had he not admitted to it, I doubt I'd have voted as I have. I would probably have chosen a less harsh measure. As it stands at the moment, I don't think WCF even knows whether he was involved or not. He denied it, admitted to it and has now denied it again.
Link?........
Never mind... I found your quote. I still see nothing convincing one way or the other. I say leave it up to Porfiry to decide. As much as people like to post "Ban this person/that person" threads, in the end this board is private property and the extent of its democracy is at the pleasure of Porf.
Assuming that PS did get a phone call(s), then he's to blame for putting his personal information on the web. To handle it by bitching about it on the very forum that the caller originated from is illogical as it only serves the purpose of the harasser.
That's a lot of attention over a couple of phone calls. Indeed, it sounds as if he would have gotten more harassment from his local/long distance provider in a telemarketing call to offer upgrades in service.
Assuming that PS did get a phone call(s), then he's to blame for putting his personal information on the web. To handle it by bitching about it on the very forum that the caller originated from is illogical as it only serves the purpose of the harasser.
That's a lot of attention over a couple of phone calls. Indeed, it sounds as if he would have gotten more harassment from his local/long distance provider in a telemarketing call to offer upgrades in service.
I voted to strip him of his moderator status if only to save him from himself.
Step away from the monitor, Well Cooked. It's not doing you any good, and the people here are particularly dramatic and harsh to begin with. You probably like it here so much, because people do pick on you and verify your own negative feelings of self-worth. You have a girlfriend, love her. You have a loving mother, respect her. You have opportunities in life (college) that some people will never have, use them. Trust me, the esteem will grow with time, and you will find your lot in life... but it is not Sciforums.
Ask yourself, "What if Porfiry shut down this site tomorrow?"
If you can't figure out what you'd do with yourself if that happened, you really need a break from here and possibly some counselling. You may need some counselling regardless, and you owe it to yourself, your family and friends to better yourself.
Step away from the monitor, Well Cooked. It's not doing you any good, and the people here are particularly dramatic and harsh to begin with. You probably like it here so much, because people do pick on you and verify your own negative feelings of self-worth. You have a girlfriend, love her. You have a loving mother, respect her. You have opportunities in life (college) that some people will never have, use them. Trust me, the esteem will grow with time, and you will find your lot in life... but it is not Sciforums.
Ask yourself, "What if Porfiry shut down this site tomorrow?"
If you can't figure out what you'd do with yourself if that happened, you really need a break from here and possibly some counselling. You may need some counselling regardless, and you owe it to yourself, your family and friends to better yourself.
Issue #1 - Short of phone records, I don't see how this can be proven. As I recall, WCF claims to not have made the call?
Issue #2 - And this is more important: Those of you who say it's PS's fault for posting personal information on the web show no understanding of the notion of good faith. You know that big ol' fight in the US about people who call you five times during dinner to sell you carpet cleaning or such? You know, that whole snafu with the National Do-Not-Call list, whether you should have to opt-in or be allowed to opt-out ... all of that? It's the same argument: Your number is in the phone book, and therefore the phone line you pay for in order to serve your needs is open season for anyone who thinks they have a half a reason to waste your time. The good-faith aspect of the phone book is that people who actually need to find your phone number can. To take that offering and exploit it for other reasons is still the choice of the exploiter, and is wrong. Whoever it was that called PS chose to obtain that information with the intent of harassing.
And think of it this way: It's real easy to take the selfish route and say, "It's his fault for posting the info on the web." Why? Because if anyone chooses to demonstrate the folly of your opinion by doing the same to you, well, you can be malicious and decide its that person's fault and start the process to have them punished. So it's real easy to have an opinion when you can turn around and charge someone with a crime for demonstrating the folly of your opinion. It's a cowardly route to take. Think about it this way: If a man says a woman deserved to get raped or, at least, shouldn't be upset because she chose to dress that way and go to that bar ... do you think that man won't prosecute me if I jump him outside the Elephant & Castle and sodomize him against his will just because his ass looked good in those jeans that he chose to wear to that location? Likewise, it's easy to blame someone for being harassed because you can always retract that opinion when you decide that you don't like being harassed in the same way.
I'm of the opinion that Sciforums members should not be calling one another unless (A) that communication is invited, or (B) that communication has to do with someone's professional work and you only happen to know of them at all because of their presence at Sciforums.
Imagine that a publisher happens to live within a couple blocks of me. And imagine that he reads some stuff of mine at Sciforums and, for some odd reason is impressed. (Just ... work with me on this one.) Now, let's imagine that in trying to figure out who I am, he sees a certain picture on my website by which someone walking past the house could know that yes, this is the house in the picture. So he says, "Oh, lucky day! This dude's right here in town." Now, if he came all the way from New York to find me, I might tell him, "Email probably would have been easier, but thank you." But as it is, in this hypothetical, he sought me out for business purposes. It might be odd to see a Sciforums connection on the front porch, but ... hey. It's all in good faith. He's not here to hurt me or anyone else, and seeks to bring us both benefit by our communication.
Now the flip-side: Once upon a time Gendanken asked me a hypothetical about my reaction if she sought me out in order to hurt my child. (It was a deeper issue than that, but it works well enough.) Gee, do you think that would be good faith?
Society is cooperative; we share information about ourselves in order to derive better benefits from life. Apparently it's getting too much to ask of other people that they consider their neighbors at least as important and deserving and human as themselves.
So those who would fault PS for having contact information on the web, I would ask you to bear in mind the next time some machine or underpaid CSR calls you six times during dinner or late in the evening that this is exactly what you asked for, and what you think is right. And don't waste your time being annoyed at the people calling you, as you've already indicated that they have no obligation or even reason to respect you as a human being in society. Don't get pissed off about spam; don't complain when you sit your daughter down to open the e-mail from grandma and find sixteen offers to augment your manhood and another twenty for college girls who will make your dreams come true. Don't ever show annoyance to the door-to-door salesmen who knock on your door and then attempt to force themselves inside in order to throw shit on your floor and begin their Kirby vacuum demonstration.
It's why we call it "civilization." We're supposed to be civilized, and thus aware of and somewhat compassionate toward our neighbors. I don't like the way spammers operate. Having read telephone surveys to people, I can say I despise telephone solicitation from both ends. The door-knockers come in waves, and that really annoys me to get two missionaries, a salesman, and a college student advocating a local PIRG within the period of a couple hours.
So I don't see why I should exploit the same logical assertion--one that presupposes values I disagree with, anyway--for my own benefit.
Of course, I could be wrong. Someone might be able to give me a reason. I doubt it. But I owe it to spammers and missionaries and harassers to keep an open mind, right?
On the vote: I abstain at this point, reserving my vote to deploy on behalf of what I consider right if this topic gets too far out of hand. To a certain degree it already is out of hand, but there's no harm yet done that a short period after the topic is done won't erase from memory.
Issue #2 - And this is more important: Those of you who say it's PS's fault for posting personal information on the web show no understanding of the notion of good faith. You know that big ol' fight in the US about people who call you five times during dinner to sell you carpet cleaning or such? You know, that whole snafu with the National Do-Not-Call list, whether you should have to opt-in or be allowed to opt-out ... all of that? It's the same argument: Your number is in the phone book, and therefore the phone line you pay for in order to serve your needs is open season for anyone who thinks they have a half a reason to waste your time. The good-faith aspect of the phone book is that people who actually need to find your phone number can. To take that offering and exploit it for other reasons is still the choice of the exploiter, and is wrong. Whoever it was that called PS chose to obtain that information with the intent of harassing.
And think of it this way: It's real easy to take the selfish route and say, "It's his fault for posting the info on the web." Why? Because if anyone chooses to demonstrate the folly of your opinion by doing the same to you, well, you can be malicious and decide its that person's fault and start the process to have them punished. So it's real easy to have an opinion when you can turn around and charge someone with a crime for demonstrating the folly of your opinion. It's a cowardly route to take. Think about it this way: If a man says a woman deserved to get raped or, at least, shouldn't be upset because she chose to dress that way and go to that bar ... do you think that man won't prosecute me if I jump him outside the Elephant & Castle and sodomize him against his will just because his ass looked good in those jeans that he chose to wear to that location? Likewise, it's easy to blame someone for being harassed because you can always retract that opinion when you decide that you don't like being harassed in the same way.
I'm of the opinion that Sciforums members should not be calling one another unless (A) that communication is invited, or (B) that communication has to do with someone's professional work and you only happen to know of them at all because of their presence at Sciforums.
Imagine that a publisher happens to live within a couple blocks of me. And imagine that he reads some stuff of mine at Sciforums and, for some odd reason is impressed. (Just ... work with me on this one.) Now, let's imagine that in trying to figure out who I am, he sees a certain picture on my website by which someone walking past the house could know that yes, this is the house in the picture. So he says, "Oh, lucky day! This dude's right here in town." Now, if he came all the way from New York to find me, I might tell him, "Email probably would have been easier, but thank you." But as it is, in this hypothetical, he sought me out for business purposes. It might be odd to see a Sciforums connection on the front porch, but ... hey. It's all in good faith. He's not here to hurt me or anyone else, and seeks to bring us both benefit by our communication.
Now the flip-side: Once upon a time Gendanken asked me a hypothetical about my reaction if she sought me out in order to hurt my child. (It was a deeper issue than that, but it works well enough.) Gee, do you think that would be good faith?
Society is cooperative; we share information about ourselves in order to derive better benefits from life. Apparently it's getting too much to ask of other people that they consider their neighbors at least as important and deserving and human as themselves.
So those who would fault PS for having contact information on the web, I would ask you to bear in mind the next time some machine or underpaid CSR calls you six times during dinner or late in the evening that this is exactly what you asked for, and what you think is right. And don't waste your time being annoyed at the people calling you, as you've already indicated that they have no obligation or even reason to respect you as a human being in society. Don't get pissed off about spam; don't complain when you sit your daughter down to open the e-mail from grandma and find sixteen offers to augment your manhood and another twenty for college girls who will make your dreams come true. Don't ever show annoyance to the door-to-door salesmen who knock on your door and then attempt to force themselves inside in order to throw shit on your floor and begin their Kirby vacuum demonstration.
It's why we call it "civilization." We're supposed to be civilized, and thus aware of and somewhat compassionate toward our neighbors. I don't like the way spammers operate. Having read telephone surveys to people, I can say I despise telephone solicitation from both ends. The door-knockers come in waves, and that really annoys me to get two missionaries, a salesman, and a college student advocating a local PIRG within the period of a couple hours.
So I don't see why I should exploit the same logical assertion--one that presupposes values I disagree with, anyway--for my own benefit.
Of course, I could be wrong. Someone might be able to give me a reason. I doubt it. But I owe it to spammers and missionaries and harassers to keep an open mind, right?
On the vote: I abstain at this point, reserving my vote to deploy on behalf of what I consider right if this topic gets too far out of hand. To a certain degree it already is out of hand, but there's no harm yet done that a short period after the topic is done won't erase from memory.
I see your point, Tiassa. Perhaps my use of the word "blame" is a bit harsh or blunt. To rephrase it in order to more accurately express the way I think of it, I might say, "PS took on the risk associated with privacy when disclosing personal information." I seldom attempt to hide behind a screen name on the internet, and I think that my name is also available in my profile, but that's a risk *I* take. I doubt that anyone could obtain my phone number, since I'm more careful about that type of information, but I think if I were harassed from someone at SciForums, the last step I would take is to acknowledge it publically and allow the harasser to get any satisfaction from believing that it affected me.
People who choose to live public lives (politicians, authors, entertainers, etc.) deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. The internet is nothing if not a public medium and we are each "politicians," "authors," and "entertainers" here. How public we let ourselves become is up to us, but we shouldn't be shocked when our "internet selves" cross the boundaries of our "real-life selves." This evolution is inevitable with the continued deepening of integration of the internet into our lives.
So, perhaps "blame" isn't the correct word... responsible for his own level of risk he is, however. As are we all.
People who choose to live public lives (politicians, authors, entertainers, etc.) deal with this sort of thing on a regular basis. The internet is nothing if not a public medium and we are each "politicians," "authors," and "entertainers" here. How public we let ourselves become is up to us, but we shouldn't be shocked when our "internet selves" cross the boundaries of our "real-life selves." This evolution is inevitable with the continued deepening of integration of the internet into our lives.
So, perhaps "blame" isn't the correct word... responsible for his own level of risk he is, however. As are we all.
It's ridiculous to assume it's Paulsamuel's fault for posting his- ... never mind, Tiassa said it more cogently than I could possibly have, so I refer you to his post right up there.
I advocate WCF's eternal banning from Sciforums. Harassment can not and should not be tolerated in any way or form whatsoever. It doesn't matter if paulsamuel put up his personal information on the Internet; the blame is entirely on WCF for misusing it to harass PS.
WCF, quit whining about your "suicidal" life to get sympathy points. It's not going to work. And why the hell are YOU voting on a poll that's judging you? Since when did the defendant become part of the jury?
PS, if you're reading this, I'm sure many of us are sick about this entire affair. Either take legal action or shut up and move on.
Good grief.
I advocate WCF's eternal banning from Sciforums. Harassment can not and should not be tolerated in any way or form whatsoever. It doesn't matter if paulsamuel put up his personal information on the Internet; the blame is entirely on WCF for misusing it to harass PS.
WCF, quit whining about your "suicidal" life to get sympathy points. It's not going to work. And why the hell are YOU voting on a poll that's judging you? Since when did the defendant become part of the jury?
PS, if you're reading this, I'm sure many of us are sick about this entire affair. Either take legal action or shut up and move on.
Good grief.
Zero,
OK so why is it my fault that someone called Paulsamuel, oh that right Paulsamuel claimed I did it, so thus I must be punished! The thought never even occured to you that I might be innocent?
Yes my life is fuck up, I’m chronically depressed. Sciforum has not been a problem for me, it has not cause me to lose interest in everything, my depression seems to be more related with what ever has been going steadily wrong psychologically, biochemically or physically (brain tumor perhaps, I wish.) with my brain over the last 4 years. Ever since senior year in HS I have been feeling more and more like shit on a 24/7 basis.
But if it makes you all feel better, I just got fired, for sitting on the job to much. I could not even keep a job a walmart! My parents are pissed as I happen to owe them alot of money.
OK so why is it my fault that someone called Paulsamuel, oh that right Paulsamuel claimed I did it, so thus I must be punished! The thought never even occured to you that I might be innocent?
Yes my life is fuck up, I’m chronically depressed. Sciforum has not been a problem for me, it has not cause me to lose interest in everything, my depression seems to be more related with what ever has been going steadily wrong psychologically, biochemically or physically (brain tumor perhaps, I wish.) with my brain over the last 4 years. Ever since senior year in HS I have been feeling more and more like shit on a 24/7 basis.
But if it makes you all feel better, I just got fired, for sitting on the job to much. I could not even keep a job a walmart! My parents are pissed as I happen to owe them alot of money.
Last edited:
- Status