SAM Behavior

Because I'm not the person who knows the image's location or has it saved..? It was someone else who posted it and I just remember it. I do wonder why it offends certain people like yourself, however. Nudity isn't offensive, nor is it inherently evil, nor is it "shameful" or "embarrassing" or any of the other insane things your religion might teach.

Question: are you of an arab or muslim background?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are lord hillyer, yes?
you can find the pic here
both
dad is saudi, mom is yemeni, i pray 5 times a day

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who is lord hillyer..?

Can you tell me why that image might offend you (or someone like you?)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

people get attached. one thing i did was turn off the avatars because i found myself reponding or basing my responses more on the posters avatar than the actual content.

and yes, i noticed this is commonly asked of you. i have no idea why.

 

i like to invite quad to comment on the premise he inferred from the op
explain the methodology behind your reasoning

 

well this is where you parade examples of sam's hatred of jews, i mean,you must have some contextual basis for framing all these questions, yes?

i see, we are noting that sam is a white nazi from germany or at least someone that sympathizers with them

 

pass

 

what hate sites? cite the relevant posts, please

 

The most recent one I noticed (just before her ban) was judenfrei.org :

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2363305&postcount=105

 

i see
what do you think was quoted from that site?
what issues do you have with the Journal for the Study of Judaism from which the paper linked by sam was published in?

what was your take on the content of the link? what about the author?

for the record, if i need a specific paper, i do not care where the shit is hosted. neither do i care to pay for something when i can find it for free. the content should ideally be allowed to speak for itself and not serve as an endorsement for the site that hosts it

 

sam
box.net has decent hosting.
next time download pdf, upload to box then post that link here

that outta keep trolls like quad rioting over bogus issues

 

So, how exactly is Quad a troll?

~String

 

Genuine question: Whats offensive about three little pigs running around a Synagogue? They are so cute! Are there Jews here who, due to our/their repressive religion, don`t except that bacon is a really tasty and normal morsel of cuisine and reality?

 

None to speak of.

It's splitting hairs.

No opinion.

Understandable, but inappropriate. Hate sites are a tainted avenue for even the most innocuous of information.

If no clean, free sites exist, then this speaks strongly to the appeal of the publication in question, to the point where dirty links must be scrupulously avoided if the linker wishes to avoid prima-facie association with their agenda.

If clean, free sites do exist, then the selection of a hate site speaks strongly to the selector's character and motives.

Well, again, if no other site hosts it, then that adds up to a fairly strong statement by the content, no? Appealling to particular audiences is one of the primary ways in which content speaks for itself.

And if clean sites are available, then the selection of a hate site is an endorsement quite apart from anything the content might have to say.

Moreover, the fact that the appropriate sources apparently can't be had for free supports my assertion that such topics are not amenable to original analysis here: you just end up arguing about what's in professional journals and library archives that nobody in the conversation has access to.

The appropriate thing to do in this case would have been to write a summary including key excerpts, and also link to the various reviews of the material, and encourage people to pay for the article and read it themselves. If a poster insists on linking to content on a dirty site, then there should at least be a disclaimer dissociating them from objectionable content on the site.

That's all supposing the poster doesn't approve of the site in question, of course, something we have no evidence for in this instance. Even when confronted with the nature of the site, no such disclaimer was forthcoming. Indeed, the contents of the site look more-or-less like a compendium of S.A.M.'s favorite talking points.

 

Well, I am often intentionally provocative and condescending. One has to be, around here, if one hopes to get people invested enough to respond to you. Whether that crosses the line into genuine trolling/disruption/malice I'll let others decide for themselves. Pretty much all posting behavior on sciforums would fall into a broadly-interpretted definition of trolling.

 

nothing, but titties are much more visually appealling.
tits are tits, it doesn't matter if they're muslim or not as long as i can fondle them.

personally i'm a thigh man myself, give me some muslim thighs i can suck on.

 

i find quad to be a exemplary poster in general
in this instance (posts #25 and #28) however, no

 

here is how the pm can go....

 

It might cross the line into flaming. But trolling does not apply AFAIK.

~String

 

Dear Gustav,

Please act in a considerable and respectable manner towards your fellow members of this community.