Good Bye, Lightgigantic.

Quality my ass, he used the same tired arguments over and over, and hid his basic shallowness in esoteric language and obfuscation. Good riddance!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pedestal details.

Why wouldn't he be an intellec? he was a beast in the debate forums where survival was with the intellect, so of course he's an intellectual.
smartest, most intellectual? maybe not. but a beast and intellectual for sure, hence he's an intellectual beast.
although I'd add that he was a beast who dodged, blocked and knocked out, while other beasts stabbed bit and clawed.

It's much simpler than that really; I always wonder how the frustration doesn't get to him from doing what he does repeatedly, I would've either gotten harsh as I sometimes do or just not bother to give the other party my time. He's got to be very kind, patient and caring to keep doing what he was doing without lashing out, his aura of authority and simple confidence (perceived by you as arrogance) is probably what kept him going. Which was good for those who learned from him.

I doubt it was ever his intention to muddy the waters, as I said he wasn't perfect, I've seen him wrong in debates. Again, so what? which of us is always right?

It is a fine line. Unjustified confidence can be seen as arrogance. and deserved arrogance can be seen as confidence.
Confidence might be perceived as arrogance.

I expect you to hold that position. It's a luxury you can afford.
Mind you I adhere to it too, but I recognize its practical inaptness.

well I might be wrong in assuming that anyone who stayed here for so long and seen other members get banned would get a strong sense of how the trend goes. However, if you've been always on the "right" side of controversy, then I think I can imagine how you'd lack such sense of what is acceptable and what is permaban-grade-unacceptable around here.

I wonder what interesting and provoking conversation you were anticipating when you came here trying to "balance out" the perceived too-good image of a banned member.

putting LG's intellect/intelligence in the same bracket as that of the majority of posters of the forum, new and old, young and old, is... either meant as an insult in of itself, or comes from ignorance of the wide range of intelligence levels the totality of sciforums posters belong to.
you managed to be here for so long with not more than a PM from mods and don't know what would normally constitute a permaban, so your inexperience in other forum matters(like the average intelligence of members) doesn't surprise me much.

In all honesty I thought it was jealousy and envy, your jump into this thread was uncharacteristic imo.
your rare interventions got their value to me because of their rarity and well thoughtfulness. now you're here bashing a prolific member because you think he doesn't deserve this praise and fame.
:shrug:
"get him off that pedestal"?

*nodding*.
And you're compelled to balance that why? seems too unimportant an issue for you to bother with.

PS, I'm not trying to be problematic with others for LG's sake, but I'm inclined to not just ignore those I disagree with on this thread, which might be the last thread about LG here, after the _____ act of permabanning him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

well duh! the arguments he was replying to are repeating over and over.

So you didn't understand what he was saying, but you concluded he was shallow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe I draw a distinction between being an intellectual and merely being intelligent.
And as for you describing him as an "intellectual beast", I guess if you'd seen Einstein playing football you'd call him a "footballing legend" as well?

He doesn't have to be kind, patient or caring. He could just as easily be self-centred with an egotistical streak that fed off the admiration from others, a case of if you stroke his ego then he'd go out of his way to keep you stroking. Just saying that there are different ways to view the matter.

If you ever disagreed with him you would know that the intention was there, given the propensity to do so when argued against.

And arrogance might be perceived as confidence, especially if you're happy to stroke his ego.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A luxury? And in what way can I afford it while others can't?
And what is the practical inaptness you're referring to??

Rather depends on what controversy you're referring to. I find it is merely a matter of being consistent, honest, and not giving the mods cause to question what you post. If the only way you can argue a point or a position is to incur the wrath of the mods then I would say you're doing something wrong. So don't confuse having a clean record with being on the "right" side of anything.

Always interesting to see how others have a different perception than I do, especially when they can be poles apart.

Or comes from merely using the term to cover a wide range of intelligence. I'm not going to hold him up as any more or less intelligent than people I know equally as little. But he didn't come across to me as anything special. Just knowledgeable in his field.

You would be surprised how little you know of other people, including their intelligence level. I merely do not make personal assumptions of people that I have no way of supporting.

Indeed I don't think he does deserve it. I don't think many people do.
But when I read something of someone that is almost the exact opposite of how I view that person, something compelled me to respond.

I can cope with the triviality that LG is/was.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Meh, maybe it's that I will actually miss him and his arrogance... sorry, his supreme justified confidence. Who knows.

Wow - so you're not inclined to ignore those you disagree with... and yet you question why I responded?

Anyhoo - this will be my last post on the matter.
As previously said, I would not have banned him, and issues you have with the method/process of his banning you should raise through appropriate paths.
But I'll leave it with the clear message that he clearly impressed some people and irritated others. Well, he certainly wasn't dull.

 

I understood perfectly well, he had a belief and worked backwards from there.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG

 

That was some long reading.... Hello y'all. And take care LG, where ever yee shall go or wander... Good to see some of ya again...

 

I just want to say for the record that I think that LG's banning was totally unjust.

LG and I argued a lot. I think that we disagreed more often than we agreed. But that was ok, he seemed like a nice enough guy, he had a distinctive point of view, and he represented it well.

Sciforums needs diversity of opinion. That's what makes threads interesting. It's what prevents Sciforums from becoming a little clique of like-minded people devoted to excluding and condemning everyone who is different. It's what keeps this place modestly mature and prevents it from just being a reprise of high-school.

I thought of LG as something of a friend. I don't like friends being taken away, seemingly for no reason at all besides ego and spite.

 

No. Don't do that again. He was a beast of another color is what he was.

 

Not many people liked Tach, but I did, even though we disagreed on everything. That's why I liked him. He was taken away. Too bad! I was taken away from other sites. Too bad!

 

So you tell me I'm wrong and then cop-out on the correction?

Give me a reason to take you seriously, Kitt.

Putting it to a vote makes arguments moot, since those putting forth arguments also cast a ballot. What should have happened is a review of the facts by the administrator--ie you--and a decision should have been rendered.

 

Simple; a trial was held, both sides presented their arguments and given the chance to sway the other side. In the end, the decision to uphold the ban won by a single vote; two of those votes, mine and another, were not straight "uphold the ban" votes either. We gave our reasons for what we felt, and stated that either a long term temp ban or a perm ban was in order, given the longevity of this poor behavior.

There was nothing "kangaroo trial" about it; the verdict had not been decided prior to the vote, though some of the mods felt it was (ironically enough, it was thought the verdict was decided AGAINST upholding the ban before the vote came to be).

Additionally, you state simply that he didn't sexually harass anyone... I fail to see how you can make such a blanket statement, given that sexual harassment is, largely, due to how an action or statement is received. Perhaps if LG hadn't been so intent on TRYING to piss people off, it wouldn't have come across as harassment. Was sexual harassment his intention? Who knows; we'll never know the truth 100% since you KNOW he'd say it wasn't, even if it were, and none of us here are telepathic, to my knowledge.

However, in the end, the administration and moderation staff came to a conclusion, and the initial decision was upheld.
You seem to take offense to that, and feel that it was all a sham; this is interesting considering how many times decisions HAVE been overturned, especially when evidence was presented to show they were wrong.
It is also worth noting that you say the vote made the arguments moot - this is untrue. Several of the moderation and admin staff were not actively involved in that dispute UNTIL it was turned into a vote; as a result, they cast their ballot based on the arguments presented.

 

Oh oh!

Did RobityBob1's ban ever get to a vote, and if so, did anyone vote for him to stay?

 

Do you mean... the more strongly a person perceives that they have been sesually harrased... the more likely that the accused person will be found guilty.???

 

These LG-ban related threads are almost nostalgic. Like reading similar controversies in one those shorter-lived clubs that splintered off members or ex-members of alt.discuss.clubs.public.religion.agnostic_atheist started, back in the days of extinct Webtv. In A&A itself few got banned because even the "home team" wanted to keep the opposition around to argue with or insult. Not to mention that it was an abandoned club for years, without an owner/mod. No banning was possible, and ergo the "home team" eventually got conditioned to a style of liberty which they couldn't give up the tradition of when the discussion group was re-created with an overlord. (Except in the case of the most utterly annoying, meds-deprived, or spam-happy individuals.) But the comparison to such an "in-house", bygone era is only analogous to certain sub-forum categories in the middle of SciForums, of course.

 

This whole thing reminds me of Franz Kafka's 'The Trial'.

It still isn't clear what LG's original "crime" was. Nor has the supposed evidence for that unnamed crime ever been revealed. But whatever it was, he's assumed to be inexcusably guilty of it.

What appears to me to have happened in this sorry little episode was that LG angered a couple of moderators by persistently arguing against things that they cared very strongly about. He was permanently banned in a fit of spite for that inexcusible transgression. Then when some of the common people and perhaps a couple of different moderators complained, there was an empty little charade of a "trial", and LG stayed banned.

It had nothing whatsoever to do with ethics or principle. The bottom line is that he pissed off a couple of influential people around here, and when the clique that runs this place gets angry, the board's smaller and less-popular participants suffer.

It's high-school all over again, and there's nothing admirable about that. (When the same dynamic grows, we have North Korea.)

He certainly didn't sexually harass anyone in the "blow-job" exchange.

That suggests that anything that a man says or does in the presence of a woman can constitute "sexual harassment", if she decides that's what it is. And if she decides that it is, then the guy is automatically guilty of some heinous and inexcusible crime against political correctness, perhaps without even knowing what his supposed transgression was.

In other words, an accusation is tantamount to guilt, the prosecutor needn't present any evidence, and the accused is given no opportunity to respond to whatever it is that he's accused of.

I think that probably 90% of what Tiassa posts on Sciforums is intended to piss off American Republicans and political conservatives. Tiassa isn't banned for doing it, far from it. Tiassa is seemingly kind of untouchable around here, an individual who can write whatever he wants to write and anger anyone he wants to anger, with no consequences at all.

Whether the rules apply or not just depends on whether or not an individual is a member of the clique.

I do. It isn't fair and it offends my understanding of justice. I used to work for years in a California district attorney's (the public prosecutor's) office in a paralegal and investigative capacity, where I was involved in preparing many hundreds of cases for court. What happened here to LG would never happen in a California court of law.

The thing for the rest of us to take away is that it's an object lesson. It's a lesson to all of the rest of Sciforums' rank-and-file participants about what our real situation is here. The gloves came off for a moment and we saw the ugly thing underneath. Now the gloves are back on and everyone is supposed to simply forget it (and LG as well).

 

*shrugs* As always, people are entitled to their opinions on what happened and why.

Then again, you are comparing what happened here to a California court of law... I'm rather glad Sci Forums isn't much like California... given how many issues that place has all on its own, between simple debt (in the hundreds of billions), lack of money for teacher pensions, lack of money to pay state workers retirement funds, terrible air pollution/quality from particulate matter concentrations, issues with freight pollution, overcrowded prisons (so much so that in 2005 federal judges took over the administration of the prison health care system), one of the lowest rankings in terms of educational improvement (in the bottom 40 last I checked) despite almost doubling funding on the matter, a crumbling highway and roadway infrastructure being ignored in favor of a high speed rail system nobody actually seems to want, and high unemployment (what was it? 32% or somewhere in that range last I looked?)

Yeah, I'm GLAD we're not California...

 

Something About Facts ....

The one advantage a court would have is that at some point, the advocates must address the incontrovertable facts on record; I think we're all aware of my feelings toward some of our colleagues' disregard for that record.

There are at least two issues taking place here. One is an objective question of the alleged offense, and the other is a political argument.

The public saw the political argument. The current discussion is an extension of that. To wit:

• The staff is aware of a question about when the Administration reached what conclusions. If the Administration had reviewed the record before asserting its conclusions, then why was the Administration, days later, putting questions before the public when the answer was on record well before the Administration ever asserted its prejudgment?

No, really, what was the point of that?​

Of course, neither you nor I can answer that question.

 

In the real world the "victim" isnt on the Jury... but that aside... shoudnt the Jury deside guilt or innocense based on the facts of the situation... not the perception of the supposed "victim".???

 

How would a jury do this in, say, a case of rape, without considering the perception of the victim? If there was no perception, there would be no "wrong or right".