I've had it with the B&E Moderator calling me a liar

mmOK. You made your case. Nicely done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Habit and Definition

You applied a nonstandard measurement to an essentially useless argument. It wasn't your finest moment. Indeed, it made clear to me that you're not actually here to discuss issues, but, rather, engage people in ego contests.

Indeed—

—I found it absolutely hilarious when you complained about getting too much heat for a mistake:

James, everyone's posts get misunderstood from time to time.

Sometimes it's the readers fault and sometimes it's the writers fault.

But to THREATEN TO BAN someone just because their post was not clear is the sign of a very poor and vindictive moderator.

Any DECENT moderator would have simply told me that people were questioning my post and simply asked me to clarify what I meant by it.

Not that difficult of a job actually.

And YES James, you did threaten to Ban me just for making a post which wasn't clear ....

(#2909440/37)​

And, for the record, no, he didn't threaten to ban you. Folks who pay attention around here are well aware that James and I are routinely at each other's throats over infraction and suspension policies. In short, I know damn well what it looks like when he threatens to suspend someone. Furthermore, the anemia of your complaint in that occasion demands that you are either crooked or stupid, and that's also a hard thing to work around in dealing with you. That is, in the example of your boo-hoo about James last month, not only did the whole setup full of clodhopping excuses further erode any pretense of your integrity, but it is really hard to believe that you don't get the point: He addressed you as a fellow member. Why drag his rank into it? Maybe it has something to do with your fundamental need to fight with people. But you don't fight over anything real. You just drag down otherwise productive discussions. Instead of providing a corrective service to the community, you use the opportunity to spring yet another belligerent digression. Nobody's amused. Nobody thinks it's intelligent.

It is beyond silly, sir, how many arguments you are willing to base on the idea that your definition—seemingly neatly crafted for the purpose of picking a fight—is the only applicable one, and supersedes even the real context of an issue. The simplest way to express a difference involves division? Your definition of oil trumps, say, the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing? Your definition of overwhelming is more authoritative than a dictionary?

I mean, come on, man.

You don't seem to think it nearly as admirable if others treat you as you treat others.

All? That would be overkill.

But it's a number of things. You've been adding the details for a while. But the fundamental components are the need for dispute and competition instead of contribution and cooperation, a propensity for recalibrating the lexicon to suit your need, and an ever-shifting argumentative basis that has you constantly explaining what you really meant as compared to what you said in the first place. These habits are starting to define you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Tiassa, pleased to meet you. I do not comment on the rights or wrongs ot the matters being discussed between you two, for I haven't the time to read through all the background to your exchange.

I just wanted your assurance that you and the other mods will be applying what you said above to anyone else who may be demonstrating propensity for doing exactly what you say we can do without. I am naming no names. That is not what this is about. I merely want to be assured that you and the other mods intend to apply that same stricture to others irrespective of 'position' or 'length of membership' etc etc.

If so, then I will be a most happy member of this great site which can be made even greater if what you profess to dislike will be made policy for all. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.
You made a simple math error.
Indeed, it never was a bigger issue than that.

What?
I shouldn't complain that he threatened to ban me if I simply wrote a poorly worded post?

Of course you don't see it because James isn't going to ban you.

Ah, yes he did, and the threat was for simply making another poorly worded post:

Pretty clear to me.

Good for you, I'm not a member of the Moderator "in crowd" and I'm not a mind reader.
The real solution would be for James not to threaten to ban someone for inconsequential posts, even if he doesn't really mean it.

James is never just a fellow member unless you are also a moderator and he brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me.

If you feel that way there is no reason that you have to read my posts (and there is the ignore function).
I don't read many of yours.

No, I'm sure our definition is the same.

You just misread the article.

It didn't say what you thought it said:

This is the article you linked to:

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.co...-lower-2011-oil-use-becomes-net-exporter.html

These are the figures it gives:

US oil demand in all of 2011 dropped 1.8%, or by 345,000 bpd, from 2010 to a two-year low of 18.835 million bpd.

US oil output climbed 7.4% to 5.877 million bpd, the highest level since 1999.

==> note the difference between DEMAND for oil, 18.8 Million BPD vs Production (output) of 5.8 Million BPD.

The difference is IMPORTED, or ~13 Million Barrels per day.

Now here is the point on the record exported FUEL totals

Net exports of gasoline set a record for any month in December, at 556,000 bpd, according to EIA data beginning in 1945.

For all of 2011, net exports of gasoline averaged a record 373,667 bpd, according to EIA annual records back to 1935

They are a small fraction of our NET OIL IMPORTS.

Which is what's so funny.

You STILL think you are right. That we actually were a NET oil exporter last year.

Which is ABSURD

Nah, if you go back to that thread I gave the dictionary definition of overwhelming. You were the one who tried to change what I wrote to 'overwhelming majority'

etc etc etc

 

Wow. I should have seen this coming. lol

Arthur is such an agent of disinformation and lies. Billy is the one breath of fresh air and truth this forum has, and one of the few reasons I come here. (That and some of the great, wonderful lovely users that entertain me, and threads like this. Ha ha ha ha.) Wouldn't you know that it would drive adoucette absolutely crazy that Billy is a moderator and that he should have to tolerate the continued dissemination of truth?

I have always believed that adoucette must be an agent of corporate or government intelligence. How else could anyone be so knowingly hypocritically disingenuous? Dunno. I'm probably just paranoid. He's probably unconsciously a pseudo-economic Manchurian candidate, and he's not even aware of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Amazing what mass media and SSSS technology will do these days, eh? THEY LIVE!!!

No one else. . . well, except myself, Billy T, and Tiassa, goes out of their way to do the leg work and research to prove their points. Yet, the difference with Arthur? He uses only GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA and CORPORATE establishment shilling that are associate only with the CFR and established news services to prove his case. Independent research journalists? Perish the thought. They would never enter into his posts, and he will ignore all links to those resources. A liar? Count on it.

Sorry adoucette, Billy is right. If the shoe fits sir, go ahead and wear it.

 

The significance of the figure can be debated, but it seems adoucette had his math right.

 

True, but he was wrong about James threatening to ban him. What James actually said was that he decided to go into the thread to confront a complaint rather than banning, and after he received a rather lackluster and highly defensive response to this said that maybe next time he wouldn't bother with the confrontation. More of a warning than a threat.

 

Haven't even seen the original location of the alleged threat.

 

No.
I posted his threat, verbatim.

Not sure how else I should have taken that.
Essentially: make another poorly phrased post that someone mistook as being a lie and instead of taking the time to moderate the discussion I'll just ban you instead.

What's the difference between a warning and a threat from a moderator?

Are we saying we shouldn't defend ourselves when questioned about our honesty?

I was accused by someone of lying and James asked "what was wrong with me?"

I explained what I meant and admitted that though my post was poorly phrased, it wasn't dishonest.

James now calls that threat "a throw-away bit of flippancy", and I would probably have been taken it that way if AFTER that bit of flippancy he had added something to indicate he was just kidding.

But he didn't.

 

I've moved on.

I didn't bring this up, Tiassa did.

 

Nothing is funny about a threat of being banned James.

You can't see that because apparently no one can ban you, so with you, it's like dancing with an elephant. You are totally unaware of when you stomp on people's toes.

 

@adoucette --

No, you didn't. You took it out of context and dishonestly tried to use it to support your contention that you've been unfairly targeted.

I read the entire thread, from start to finish. I saw the post you quoted from and you took that quote out of context. In other words you quotemined a mod in order to justify your grudge against him. Poor form to say the least.

The original quote, with the original context included, was this:

"Instead of banning you, or even giving you an official warning, I decided to simply confront you with your stupidity. And here you are telling me I'm not fit to be a moderator.

Maybe next time I won't bother. I'll just ban you instead."

And to make it even better the an excerpt(perhaps the entire thing, I'm not sure) of the report filed against you was included right above what James said. Whether this all was deliberate or not, it's still dishonest.

I know that when I read James' post I saw it as a warning against future behavior which could result in a ban, something that I think good moderators are supposed to do(helps keep the banhammer holstered).

Perhaps, and this is coming from a very competitive and defensive person, you should have focused less on that fraction of what he said and more on the bit that came immediately before it which sets the context for that tiny piece you've fixated on. Well, that and not making assumptions based on some insane idea that the mods are "out to get you" when you know full well that they all have lives that are infinitely more important to them than you or I.

Just sayin'.

I'm pretty sure that it was more of your rather aggressive response to criticism and your initial refusal to admit your part in the shit that went down that elicited James' response, and less of the ambiguity of the reported post. Well, that and your baseless accusations against James.

I know that if I were a mod who had to deal with you frequently I would be far less forgiving than James is, in fact I probably wouldn't have even bothered to confront you and would have just given you an infraction, if not a ban. But then, I'm not a moderator so that's all rather moot.

Either way, James wasn't threatening to ban you and the only way to take that from his post is to take what he said out of context, which is the very same dishonest behavior that you hate so much in some of the people here.

The difference being that the outcome of a warning is entirely dependent on your continued behavior, not the whims of a mod. If you toe the line, watch your p's and q's, dot your i's, and cross your t's then you'll be fine, at least as far as James is concerned. However if you continue with your current behavior then he just isn't going to be arsed to deal with it personally. There's only so much BS that one person can take.

Is that what I said? No, I don't think that's what I said. I think what I've said in this thread is that your accusation against James is baseless and only supported by your quotemine. Of course, as you're obviously so much better at interpreting the words of others than I am, perhaps you'll show me differently. I do so love it when people twist my words around, since unlike you I'm very careful in choosing them.

After ten or more posts of people telling you that you flubbed your post and having to have a moderator come in and ride your ass about it. You remind me a lot of Wynn in that regard, both of you just hate admitting that you're wrong or that you made a mistake and getting both of you to admit such things is like pulling a shark's teeth while it's still alive.

I dunno, I got the gist of it just fine, but then I did read the whole post and didn't take anything out of context. So that might be why I got it and you didn't.

 

See post #33.

 

No it's not.
There are several links to that thread in this thread, to quote it all over again IN LINE is silly.

The actual threat is what I quoted.

But if you believe that, then YOU did the exact same thing, so here is the statement in context:

So here is a Moderator who is supposed to be impartial and resolve disputes on the forum, and he starts out by calling my posts "silly" and then says "I decided to simply confront you with your stupidity".

So after that commentary, now put the threat in the total context of the previous statements and this is what you get:

Maybe next time somebody reports your silly posts for trolling I won't bother to confront you with your stupidity, I'll just ban you instead.

That's the threat.

It was clear.

It was not flippant. (Note to James, I accept your recent statements on this, and I'm not bringing this up again, just responding to Arioch about how I read it when it was written)

And what "future behavior" do you think I was being warned against Arioch?

To not make a post that could be unclear as to my meaning or misunderstood?

To not explain the meaning of my posts when it is misunderstood?

WHAT?

LOL

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2917495&postcount=19

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2913675&postcount=2712

I only responded twice before he got involved, the rest of it was my explaining to him what I meant.

Nope.
Go back and read the thread.

He got a complaint about my post 27, but James jumped in on 28, the very next post.

So no, there were not ten or more posts before the moderator jumped in, and after exchanging 4 posts with James it appeared that he understood what I had meant with my posts, so the fact is, most of my posts were in fact simply explaining myself to the moderator.

On the OTHER issue, about my contention that Whites overwhelmingly supported Obama, only Iceaura and Tiassa questioned my comments before James got involved, and only one post each, to which I responded to each one and tried to make it clear that I was comparing the White vote to the ~50% of the vote that one party gets.

To Iceaura: BS, he got 43% of the white vote, which is HUGE considering that he only got 53% of the votes.

To Tiassa: I didn't say overwhelming MAJORITY, but 43% of whites voting for a Black man to be their president is a huge level of support, particularly when that party only gets a bit over half the support.

Of course James then reiterated Tiassa's MAJORITY interpretation:

But that's after twice I pointed out I was talking about the 43% in comparison to just the Democrat side of the ledger, not all white people.

But your assessment of the issue is WAY off.

 

@adoucette --

Yes well, finding specific posts in a thread can be difficult at times, so I felt that I could save other people the trouble of wading through the thread and linked to the relevant post, in it's entirety, so that they could decide for themselves what they think. Unlike you I prefer not to quotemine.

But it's not a threat when placed in it's proper context. You can choose to keep seeing it as a threat if you want. I sort of get the appeal of that "everyone's out to get me" thing, makes one feel important.

And I still don't see that as a threat, and wouldn't even if it were directed at me. If someone reported me because I flubbed the wording of a post, and boy did you, and a mod had to come down and confront me with it, I certainly wouldn't interpret that as a threat. Especially not after I accused them of having a vendetta against me and insulted their ability to moderate. If I were in James' shoes you'd have been banned right then and there, but as we've established he's far more tolerant of your inane behavior than I am.

Of course, this is a perfect example of why many here simply don't want to deal with you. You insist that your interpretation, and only your interpretation, of events is the correct one, outright dismissing any other interpretation regardless of it's validity. My analysis was logical and coherent whereas yours is entirely dependent on your emotional connection to the events in question.

How about not insulting a moderator after you done fucked up a post and he called you on it. That would be good behavior to stop. Actually insulting people who wield the Almighty Banhammer is a rather stupid thing to do in the first place, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

So he asked you to clarify things which, given your rather well known tendency to word your posts rather murkily and use personal definitions rather than general definitions, is a rather understandable thing to do. How does this in any way indicate that he's "out to get you"?

And what was the tone of your posts? Belligerence and arrogance. Furthermore you suck at explaining yourself, taking two or three extra posts to do what you should have just done in the post that started the bullshit, and that was after you admitted that you worded your post poorly and meant something other than what you said. It took them a while to get you to that point, until then you simply assumed that the other's had misunderstood your post and that you had worded it properly. And maybe you did in your head, but that post was a misunderstanding waiting to happen.

You're right about the posts, however you're wrong that you ever made yourself clear in that thread.

In a written format you should be clarifying everything that isn't blatantly obvious. In fact I think that might solve a good number of your problems right there.