Banning of Balerion

They look like bats. Bat-cats. Batman and Robin genetically crossed with Cat Woman. Great Balls o' Fire. What a curious thread . . .

As for Balerion he tends to debate cranks. He doesn't take any guff. Looks like the reason given was excessive PM'ing which seems rather innocuous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, as part of the reasoning for why it occurred, said moderator posted a screenshot of the message in question as evidence. Do understand, we have a "behind closed doors" area where we discuss such things. Think of it as a form of self-regulation among the moderation staff

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Akin to"? And the misrepresentation continues. This is a very, very far reach, even for a "political twist of the knife". Look, I have to ask: did you in fact read that post completely? Did you read my subsequent ones? Because this does not make it appear that you did.

Look, I do not wish to argue about this again, but I cannot allow this sort of thing to stand. The bolded text is a nearly complete misrepresentation. That is utterly at odds with my original statement, and also to the perspective that you took on my comment in the thread itself. I remember that you did mention other nations as being examples of instances where no one acted and genocide went on (I think you mentioned Rwanda), and I do appreciate this point. It is a valid point. But construing my argument as something it is not is not a valid point.

Actually, I believe that the FSA/SFA does contains few or relatively few Islamists although not no Islamists and I agree with one of your earlier statements to the effect that the Islamists would probably win out. Early reports insisted there was "no secular opposition"; I don't know to what extent there really is or not. This certainly does not preclude action, but I think in this case (and especially given the last several years in Afghanistan and elsewhere) it demands a high standard of evidence. And so I reiterate for probably the fifth or sixth time: by involving itself in another campaign in the Islamic world (this is what? five in twenty years or so? or six?), it risks the criticism by the conservative wing of Islamic society, and this is no mean demography. By maintaining a high standard of evidence, reflection and certainty, I think the Americans/UN have the chance not only to win opinion in the Western world, but possibly even in the Islamic one. Granted, most people would prefer to see Islamists just stomped out. But by being able to demonstrate a solid case, the Americans/UN have the chance to prevent further radicalization in the ME, and also to undermine Islamist politics therein. There is an opportunity, and it should not be overlooked, but apparently it will be. Plus ca change. How do I "actively" want all this, though?

Actually, what I reported was that there was no concrete evidence of their culpability, despite the assertions you were making about the report. "Disposed to believe" is not "have proved that", and it cannot be made so. What I object to about the handling of this information, and which I noted several times in the thread, is that this intelligence is denied us. We can see nearly none of it. The transcripts are not available and several sources report a stance nearing equivocation. It is a fairly good sweep of coincidental evidence, but it is not deterministic, and that is what is required here. Some of it may even be in error, and the Russian report - which, again, we cannot see - argues the converse. The Russians might well be lying or mistaken, but then again the Americans and French (we can actually see their report, but it is correlative, not definitive) and Germans might be also. The Germans didn't seem to think that the rebels could possess the rounds initially reported to have landed on the attack sites, which is clearly not so. The attack sites, moreover, are too far away from the airbases at which activity was cited to have launched Type 63 107mms. If that was the specific allegation, it actually could not possibly be true. That would leave only one side as possibly being culpable... and it wouldn't have been Assad. If I were as corrupt as you appear to be alleging, I would have simply stopped there and let you spin.

I did not. What I did do was to find what appears to be a really excellent site of war buffs that is attempting to analyze the situation. (This was posted to the thread.) Interestingly, they found pictures of the larger, 122mm or (more likely) 140mm free-standing rocket artillery rounds. These, I think do have the range to hit the targets from at least one of the two airbases: and further updates may be found on the wiki page about the attacks. Turkish and Israeli reports suggest that the Syrian 155th Missile Battalion had committed the attacks with even larger ordnance, and this may well be true. (Actually, as I check the 140mm, it has a range of only about six miles, so is actually still too small to have been able to hit the suburbs from Al Mazzah, which is the nearer of the two. By 'active' do you mean that I consider the alternative evidence too strongly? Does this mean I shill for Assad? Why would this be so?

There's no need for the hysterics. The report contained reports of activity, evidence of an earlier heli attack, an order of battle, and so forth. I read that sentence. It just didn't have anything beside "we think they did" and the aforementioned correlations. You're looking for some kind of "smoking gun" here, but I'm telling you in all honesty that it doesn't exist. I'm sorry. It would be easier if it did.

I have since apologized and explained - twice. Where is your apology for misrepresenting me and my arguments several times on three different topics all in that same thread - all of which, I think, occurred prior to my little retribution. I could tell you where: it is nowhere, because you won't issue one, because you won't take responsibility for this violation of ethics and honesty. I ask you to not, at this point, evade my request again. I have made it clear and unmistakeable, and it my opinion that you know where you have erred. The matter is now whether you will, again, do the right thing.

If it had not been you and I at contretemps, and Tiassa moderating me, it probably never would have arisen as a serious issue - or, if it had, it would have arisen long before, in response to your several mis-assertions. I appreciate that your forgiving nature led you to request I not be banned; having done similar myself, I can appreciate the sentiment. But if we are going to speak of dire outcomes, that, too, strongly deserves mention. You cannot possibly, at this point, reassert these fallacies again, nor ignore them.

That is moral and credible.

How is your first mischaracterisation of me any different? You asserted - repeatedly - that I didn't want to get involved in Syria (that itself actually also being wrong) because the victims were Muslims, end of specification. In other words, that I was perfectly happy for Muslims to die. There seems to be a great emotional reaction on your part to my assertion - which I retracted and apologized for, since it was again meant only to instruct - but have not yet once apologized to me for either that first accusation, nor any of the others, nor I think of any of the others in any of the arguments we've had. It just goes on and on, and ends with dire threats because I dare handle you with the care you give me. It has brought us here. Is it going to stop? This is seeming how you operate.

?? Pretty sure I apologized to you, there.

[/quote]I am used to your accusations of me apparently wanting to murder people and not apologising or retracting afterwards, because that is how you operate. But if you ever think that is acceptable, think again.[/quote]

Well, if you were used to it, it would have to have occurred several times and it would have to be genuine. Why do you think it's acceptable when you do it?

I invite all the members of staff who have a problem with me to write in, post-haste. I can think of two. But to characterize it as a race sounds a little deceptive to me.

So, having apologized, it is not acceptable. When is your apology coming, I wonder? I suppose I should schedule it in somewhere between "far too late" and "never".

Yes, I am. You have battered away with several misrepresentations. I have little doubt - IMHO - that you'd like to do more, because you still haven't apologized for... any of them. So, when I go back to just reporting you every time you do this, are you going to starting ridiculing me for doing so? I seem to recall that going on too.

You've certainly accused me of wanting them to be murdered. I don't think even in the most extreme interpretation that I accused you of wanting to actually drop the bombs, so there's actually no difference.

But you wanted it so much.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So confused.

Good. Then there will be no need to slander me, or PM me later, or reply to my posts. That sounds excellent all around. I'm not attempting to be cruel to you. I just look forward to your not fallaciously bashing me further.

A stranger in perpetuity,

Geoff

 

Better not. That could be a bit deflating to a man's ego.

 

Wow..So thorough! Good job and tks for the info..

 

now this is really confusing.
i thought you already had flaming balls of fire bells.

 

no problem, nothing like a good dose of castor oil to purge your innards.

 

what do you have against men's genitals? They are there to make children, they are there not to make a mockery of. If it were not for balls, you would not be alive. Balls made it happen. And they were not steel.

 

Well they do start off pretty cute, kinda like a walnut, but then well, they start asking to be mocked!:blbl:

 

I'm intrigued by this thread, and appreciate the interest. To those who care: I was banned because I told Tiassa to go fuck himself. I told Tiassa to go fuck himself because he told me via PM, "shut up, while you still can." The context of this was Tiassa and Bells having a hissy fit over the comment made by GeoffP, and Tiassa inexplicably threatening him with a permanent ban if he failed to produce evidence of his claim. I had a bit of rant over the ridiculous double-standard that applies to moderator, but particularly to Bells, when it comes to insults...which Tiassa immediately deleted as being "Off-Topic," which is strange considering that his ultimatum to Geoff to provide proof effectively made the incident between the two the new topic of the thread. That ranting post prompted Tiassa's PM to me, which prompted my PM to T, and I honestly thought he'd return the volley and we'd spar a few rounds and that would be that.

Instead, he banned me. Whatever, I have other things to do, no biggie. In another context, I could probably understanding being told to take a seat for telling someone to go fuck themselves. Of course, I was told about a year ago by the administration that "go fuck yourself" wasn't a bannable offense, so I can't help a little incredulity at my own punishment.

Now we have Bells and Tiassa expecting thanks for Geoff's continued membership at sciforums, because his comments directed at anyone else would have resulted in a ban. This, as you all know, is fucking ludicrous. Bells' own accusations of Geoff being an Assad apologist are virtually the same as Geoff's comment taken at a face value. Add context, and what Bells said was far worse. And this isn't even the first time she's said such awful and careless things about others. She once told me that I was no different than Anders Breivik, the psychopath who murdered 77 people in Norway a couple of years ago. The implication--hell, it's not even an implication, it's an outright accusation--is that if I was in Breivik's position, I would have done the same thing. And this comment went unpunished.

The only reason we're having this discussion is because Geoff made the mistake of giving Bells a taste of her own medicine.

 

Tiassa is sciforum's Putin.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Balerion, you have come to my notice. You are a bad boy. плохой плохой мальчик.
You have my letter I think. Read it well.
Take care, or you will go where others have gone before you.

 

The Really, Really Obvious Point

Really, when all you're doing is having a childish temper tantrum in-thread, telling moderators what situations you demand they "stay the fuck out of", you're lucky to only get a yellow card. And when, as I reminded you, one has no idea about the history involved in a situation, yes, the best advice is to shut up while one can, instead of wailing like an ignorant, petulant child.

And if that is too difficult for you to comprehend, then get the clue I put in the infraction note: If you really have a policy issue to discuss, you ought to learn how to discuss it.

Because, really, Balerion's Pre-Mixed Temper Tantrum (Just Add Life!) isn't really helpful.

And that's something that many ignorant, whining trolls fail to understand: If you want a dispute to be about you, don't complain when you get your way.

If there is something about that you need help with, try inquiring in such a manner that other people can figure out what, other than your periodic need to scream like a child demanding candy, the problem is. And if it turns out your whole point is to tell a moderator whatever the phuckity-phuck-phuck-phuck you phuckity-whosit-phuckleduck, well ... er ... um ... yeah. Well?

 

Anders Brevik??
What is the statute of limitations on sciforums?

 

This is the thing: You don't get to slap someone and then call it a temper tantrum when they slap you back. You don't get to bully someone and then call them lucky that their response only earned them a warning. What's more, you don't get to talk down to people and then lecture them when they eschew diplomacy in kind. Sure, your forum powers give you immunity from accountability, but blue letters don't mean anything to me, or Geoff, or anyone else with a shred of integrity. So, yeah, PM me some sinister bullshit like "Shut up while you still can," you're going to get a big "Go fuck yourself" from me, every time.

And don't try to hide behind this "you don't know the history." The hell I don't. I know Bells, and I know you, and I know Geoff. Geoff most likely responded in kind to something Bells said, and the two of you got in a huff because a lowly commoner had the gall to bite back. And if the way you and she behaved in the Syria thread is any indication of what went down in the other threads, then Geoff's "crime" was almost certainly misrepresented for the sake of making you look righteous in you witch hunt.

So I repeat: Grow up. Stop bullying people. Stay out of it.