Good Bye, Lightgigantic.

I literally facepalmed when I read James's verdict, this is really unbelievable, sciforums will really never be the same, just like it was never the same after SAM (who apparently just dropped off).
That's the thing with these heavy weight opposition members, they can dash out the quality and quantity, opposing posters with just quality will drown in the sea of their opponents' replies and will eventually tire and leave or just spectate. Opposition members with just quantity get banned quickly. but the rare one with both just stay, alone, holding their place at the other side and keeping the balance, till the majority gets tyrannical enough, full of itself and belittling the perpetual pain in the butt, and kick that member out for the discomfort it's been causing them.

You permaban Lightgigantic, for sexual harassment? SERIOUSLY?????? That's like permabanning Inzomnia for insults, or Tiessa for not enough references, or Fraggle for spelling mistakes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I also don't remember the silly reason draqon was banned for, and he was one of the best human beings and posters on here, but I reckon a lot of people hated his guts so he just had to go.

I think the long threads where the two sides erode each other for pages on end won't be seen much, since from here on it'll be big players agreeing with each other, or small fry being told to shut up.

This is a sad day in sciforums history, I've never seen LG harass or lash out at anybody at all, let alone sexually harass someone, and here he is PERMAbanned for it, then they ask about the fairness of god's eternal hell for finite mistakes.

Anyway, those who were for it will defend it and those against it will condone it, people rarely change sides here. However, LG deserves a farewell thread better than I can offer, he was an intellectual beast; he was kind while discussing, very patient, detailed and clear in his arguments, and well versed in the sarcastic and rhetoric arts.
He didn't post much of his personal life , but didn't distance himself or close up when the opportunity was present.
He is the most influential Buddhist in my life.

Ron, Harry and Hermione will be bouncing in my head forever.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those words are reserved for AlphaNumeric.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That wasnt why he was baned... that was just the reason given.!!!

HTH

Good by LG

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say he was the only one:shrug:, there still are good posters around, though I'm afraid I don't know much of AlphaNumeric.
However where LG is truly unique, is his inertness considering the controversy he wades in, he's got the prolific relentless heads-on approach of SAM, and the damping coefficient of cosmictraveler, I can't think of anyone else who has never lost his cool.

Yeah well and here I thought reasons are given to answer "why" questions..

 

This on a forum that requires you to enter the word "BITCH" before you are allowed to post.

 

He didn't sexually harass anyone. He disagreed with the wrong people and used language that gave them an excuse to ban him.

LG wasn't exactly a quality member, it should be noted. He talked in circles and avoided critical thought at every opportunity. Some of his shortcomings were typical to internet forums, but he also found ways to be uniquely disruptive. My problem with him being gone isn't that he's gone, only how they went about getting rid of him. That, and the kangaroo court arranged by James in the aftermath. Rather than discussing the merits of his dismissal, the matter was settled by vote. Yes, you read that correctly. Meaning that the "verdict" was decided without regard to argument or reason; it was simply a yea or a nay.

And the two biggest trolls on Sciforums.com are vindicated. Somehow. Despite the calls for change, nothing changes. Nothing ever does. James and Tiassa had their public fight, but they'll patch it up and things will stay how they've always been. And we'll continue to lose posters, because the mood in Modland is all that matters.

 

It is both entertaining and sad just how strong your conviction is on this matter despite being so very wrong... but nothing I say will sway your opinion ... I am, after all, one of "the man"

 

An "intellectual beast"? Seriously? He had his sphere of knowledge, sure, but that does not make someone an intellectual.
Nor was he particularly kind while discussing, nor clear in his arguments. Instead his modus operandi was to take a rather arrogant tone from the outset, as though he was doing us a favour to even respond to us. And his responses were designed to muddy the waters through slippery slopes, strawmen, through unexplained comparatives, and to avoid answering questions with one clear word when a response of twenty words could be used with which he could demonstrate his self-perceived superiority.
Maybe these are the "sarcastic and rhetoric arts" you speak of?
He also didn't need to "lose his cool" when he could just delight in wearing people down with such an approach.

Don't get me wrong, I think the religion forum will possibly be worse off without him, at least possibly less interesting.
And I'm not sure whether the permaban was warranted or not, as I'm not au fait with what is considered sufficient grounds for such.

But please don't put him on an unwarranted pedestal.
He was certainly intelligent, but then I would say the vast majority of posters would also fall into that bracket. Possibly his greatest achievement was in convincing people there was more to him than perhaps there was.

And I have found there to be people on this site more influential to me with regard Buddhism, and outside of this site I think one merely needs to speak with one who lacks arrogance in their views to find one.

 

I'm sure LG will be reading this thread and I wish LG well wherever LG may nest next. I found his posts very interesting and at time enlightening. Thanks for your input LG, you will be missed by many.:cheers::wave:

 

You sure got it personal with him, sarkus. I can relate to little you said, but lots of it carries a sour personal tone.

 

Perhaps the sourness you perceive is your own subconscious realising that something was needed to cut through the saccharine-drenched words of your own epitaph for him. I could not relate to what you wrote, so I responded with one of my own.
As for "getting it personal" with him, how are my comments any more or less personal than your own? Are we only allowed to comment on people in such a thread if one's personal view is favourable?

 

That would be considerate, to say the least. Something I'd normally expect from you.

 

Considerate of whom? Someone who has been removed from our society by way of punishment (whatever our view might be on the process and soundness of the decision)?
Or considerate to those who held him in such high esteem that they can't possibly hear what other people might have to say to the contrary?
Either way, I give consideration where and when I think it is due. And I found it necessary to give my considered view by way of balance.

 

trying to keep the net positive.

The main word here is "beast", "intellectual" is added to it. Try posting as much as he does, benefitting people as much as he did, and remaining a proper "intellectual".
LG was a hardworking intellectual public servant of sciforums, who didn't scutter from the path of the aristocracy fast enough so many times, so he was deemed bothersome and was terminated.

He definitely, absolutely was.

meh, he wasn't perfect, but his clarity of posts to quantity of posts ratio was super high.
You need to keep in mind, he was human.

ABSOLUTELY justifiable, that's his undisputed right. How often do you, or I, or James, or any of the posters who stayed here for more than a year, bother to reply to a poster we KNOW is wrong? We just got used to them, and we can't find it in ourselves to bother anymore, why would we explain something that's been explained over and over before and has gotten boring and intellectually trivial to us? We just move along and maybe come back when things might get interesting.
LG on the other hand, responds to those who are clearly ignorant, and considering the triviality of many of what he replies to, is expected to have his confidence, and yes, he is doing those ignorant posters a favour by exposing them to the counter arguments, and he's doing us a favour by repeating to them what we already know.

LG's posts are the replies I never bothered to write. Enough said. I read a post, a simple refutation comes to mind, scroll down, LG has posted it, usually more eloquently than I would have.
Have I sometimes shook my head in dismay at some of his posts, yes I have, so what?

Maybe, I'm really not sure, on many levels.

I'm not sure what approach you speak of. If you're basically saying that his debating tactics were dishonest and fallacious, then even if they were such I'd find that suitable and practical, logical fallacies are thrown around here like "good morning". Open a random thread and scan it for fallacies.

Yeah I got all the "possibly"s

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Aha, this is what got me, if being a member of this forum for all these years hasn't made you "au fait" with what is considered sufficient grounds for a permaban, then I don't know what will.

Aside from whether it's warranted or not, the guy's been permabanned, after all these years, and didn't even get a chance to come back and give last words or defend himself. If you ended up -god forbid- losing your mind someday as well and sexually harassing someone and got permabanned and I opened a thread like this for you and put you on your own pedestal, would you like someone to come and do what you're doing?

I've raised my eyebrows here, they're reaching down my neck.

Undeserved attention? this is what I felt a bit sour.

:shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mention it in their farewell threads when they get permabanned then. Why mention it here?

Sarkus, the first atheist meeting I attended outside sciforums was the first time I called 911. Sciforums is a haven of reason and logic, it is losing its diversity and verity though.

 

ok now its clear, I see the ban unfair so tried to balance it with this farewell thread, you saw it fair so you're here to counter balance my balance to it.

 

Good bye to a person I never knew.

It seems my quizzical side has missed out on a lot of smack.

 

I don't necessarily see the ban as fair or unfair. I'm not privy to all the arguments and counter arguments and the vastness of the debate that led to the ultimate decision to uphold the ban.
It is fair in as much as it went through a process that all the moderators (presumably) agreed to.
Personally, though, from my experience with LG, I wouldn't have banned him. But just because I wouldn't have banned him doesn't mean I have to like the way he goes about his discussions, or put him on a pedestal to try to balance a perceived injustice, even if I feel it was.

 

Describing someone as an "intellectual beast" is somewhat different than describing someone as a "beast" who happens to be intelligent. I don't deny he posted a lot. If he benefitted people, great. An "intellectual"? Hmmm.

Maybe to people who hung on every word he said and treated him with the reverence he felt he deserved. But then I'm not saying he was unkind.

Again with the pedestal! His clarity was there when it suited him but he was rather good at muddying the waters, as I have stated before, especially when you disagreed with him.

It is never justifiable to be arrogant.
Confidence is one thing, but arrogance is something else. Think of all the good teachers you have had, and how many of them treated you with arrogance?

Then this speaks more of you than of him. It should never be right to argue fallacies or be deliberately dishonest. To have that as a tactic should be abhorred, not lauded.

It's a case of "possibly" because on this matter only time will tell.

Having only ever had one PM from a mod about a comment that may have overstepped the mark, I personally have no idea what would be sufficient as I have never courted with such. I am aware of why some members have been permabanned, but no idea how far over the line they threw themselves.
So no, I generally have no idea what would be deemed sufficient.

The point about him not having a chance to defend himself you'd have to take up with the mods/admins and the process they use. It's a fair point, though, but I'm not aware of the overall process followed.

If someone opened a thread for me like this then it would be no skin off my nose what people said, to be honest. I'm not here to win friends but to have interesting and provoking conversations. If my style got me thrown out, I'd certainly want to know what people genuinely thought so that I might adapt and change so that it didn't happen again, if I was concerned about it.

Ah, so a slight against unnamed members is okay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Im sure you can find something to sweeten it up with. A strawberry, perhaps?

Merely by way of balance.

What does that have to do with it? I was referring to speaking with another Buddhist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You just seem not to like him being on the pedestal. Let it go. Stop trying to put him down from the pedestal to try and balance a perceived justice.
Let it go.

He was a great member who held up a big part of what makes this forum great. He was banished in an erratic shameful way that'll dent this forum's moderating history. And how analytical you try to get with me or evasive and coy you be about your position, will not change that.