Good Bye, Lightgigantic.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pretty much stopped reading after that (the rest of it is rather pretentious crap anyway). scifes, you have made your position and feelings on the matter quite obvious, and like any good woo-woo'er, no amount of actual fact or evidence is going to sway you.

Let me put this kindly for you; if we were the "big bad untouchable moderators" you think we are... I'd ban you just for being a disrespectful liar and for a general failure to see what is right in front of you.

Since we're not, you are free to believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

Enjoy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bells always plays the gender card. Always. It's something I picked up long ago.
Also she forgot to add the usual disclaimer to her links that you're not supposed to read above and after the linked posts, please take them OUT of the context they're in because we're not talking about the context here.
I searched for that post where one of the older moderators said that you being a female wasn't the only reason why they made you a mod, but I can't find it, and can't be bothered honestly, won't change much.
I was really hoping you'd stay out of this thread, reasoning with you was never easy, and you're so good at raising hell. sigh.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol, thanks for putting it "kindly" for me.
If Saddam was a tyrant, he would've slaughtered his family and poisoned his people.
Since he's not, his family lived and his people weren't poisoned.

 

Pretty poor comparison to try and draw, since he did poison several hundred people... or do you also subscribe to the notion that he and his regime DIDN'T utilize chemical weapons against the kurdish population?

 

Says the guy who offered us this gem some time ago:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...d-quot-World&p=3065795&viewfull=1#post3065795

 

parmalee, thank you for bringing that little tidbit up... it reminds me of exactly the kind of "person" we are dealing with...

 

No, this thread was meant to be a farewell thread to Lightgigantic, not a debate of his banning circumstances, unless maybe in a story-telling/mentioning sort of way, but not with the intent of changing it, cause that's too serious, it'll never end, and will result in nothing.
As I said, , I only saw that he was permabanned for sexual harassment(among the more "acceptable" two), read somewhere about a "blow job" comment and Bells, by then I heard all I had to. the details Honestly didn't interest me, I did not, and hope not, to change the verdict, cause I know such an endeavor would be in vain and would waste everyone's time.
I wanted to say good bye, pay my respects, leave a tribute, whatever. the terms of his banning were slightly relevant, you were one of those terms, but not the main one, and to involve you(or others) to come defend themselves would kinda derail this thread.

:bugeye:

 

*shakes head* And the backpedaling begins...

 

Just check out the thread from whence it came--you'll find loads of stomach-churning fare.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"I eat non sequitur ad hominems for breakfast"

 

When I was willing and able to put some of his, erm, shortcomings aside, I was very much appreciative of some of LG's postings in this regards. Whilst not the primary focus, "religious studies" did form a significant portion of my graduate work. However--and I've noted this before, as have a handful of others--LG tended to be a tad sloppy with respect to translating from one idiom to another, and this was particularly true with regards to philosophy proper. In philosophy, esp. continental thought, concepts and terminology are hardly standardized--stringently, that is; nevertheless, deviations are only slight and seldom (never?) are words and ideas rendered as wholly meaningless outside of a particular context.

My point being that LG did not seem to respect this, whether out of ignorance, indifference, or some weirdly solipsistic sort of hubris, I do not know... still, what may very well have been some valuable info or insight was effectively rendered useless.

 

*shrugs* What you do in your spare time is your business...

Oh, you're trying to handwave your "yes I'd rape a woman if I could get away with it" comment away?

*snrk*

 

aww come on, why would I want to wave it away, It's very pertinent to the thread subject and adds much more to its content than that I'm a bad guy, a person of a "kind" worth looking at on the side while running from the matter at hand.

I am not ashamed nor embarrassed by what was quoted of me, slightly bummed that yet more irrelevant content has been posted on the thread, was gonna report it as off topic. but then I felt slightly flattered; that I'm being attacked instead of my arguments... yees, keep stroking my ego.. so that's what LG was on..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hope using the word "stroke" doesn't get me banned for sexual harassment too

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't see how you can say it is irrelevant... you are defending sexual harassment, and here we have you admitting quite plainly that you would rape a woman you deem "beautiful" if you thought you could get away with it. It speaks volumes about your character scifes, it truly does. Though, I guess you don't rightly care about that, do you.

 

and parmalee that post you linked to is exactly why my gut tells me to avoid bells(though i have forgotten that specific incident).
and it's also a clear example of how moderators carry their weight about this place, somebody mentioned highschool before.

James gave SAM 24 hours to apologize before she gets banned for lying about what he said like what bells did in the post you referenced. on the spot, no questions, reminds me of judge dredd.
but I swallowed my pride and moved on, like undoubtedly LG has more times than he can count. if I was a mod i would've banned bells, because I felt exactly how james did. apparently LG couldn't ban them, so he did what he did(whatever that'd be, but it drove them mad

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Right... because having someone take your own words and use them to show your (lack of) moral character is TOTALLY the same as repeatedly telling someone they are better off simply giving blowjobs to people...

you really ARE a sociopath, aren't you scifes? After all, you fit the definition:

Yeah... I'd say that's a good fit.

 

Revisionist much? For one, you weren't targeted because of your sex. You were targeted because of your hostility. You, as usual, took it upon yourself to slap disparaging labels on your opponents, such as "troll" and "misogynist" while implying they were stupid and/or disingenuous, among countless other ad homs.

Secondly, no, there was no sexual harassment. EF was pointing out to you that in your zeal to be done with the trolls you were actually inciting them. Which is true. Your inability to adhere to the standards which apply to us "normal" members was perhaps the largest element of what made that particular iteration of the discussion so toxic. It would be silly to pretend we don't all lose our cool from time to time, but you don't seem to have any cool to begin with. Rather, you take a position, and then proceed to hurl accusations and insinuations at anyone who opposes you. This is your default, it seems. So when you, specifically, receive a bit of a refresher in how to deal with trolls, you shouldn't be surprised.

I've never seen someone go so far out of their way to appear like a victim. I should run this back a bit...you weren't "targeted" at all. That's victim lingo, and you're no victim. You were--and are, and always have been--the aggressor. You have said some vile shit in your time, and that thread was no different. You give better than you get, and this is clearly an example of you needed to get the last laugh. And, thanks to our bumbling administrator's ridiculous decision to put this matter--[ur=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?124255-Redux-Rape-Abortion-and-quot-Personhood-quot&p=3162892&viewfull=1#post3162892]one he himself dismantled[/url], referring to it as a "kangaroo court"--to a vote, you got just that.

But we'll be here again. Time is a flat circle, as my childhood pen-pal Reggie Ledoux used to say.

For one, LG wasn't the one who brought up blowjobs. That was EF. What LG did was refer to EF's post--which, as has been pointed out to you by numerous sources, was in no way, shape, or form, sexual harassment. I suspect LG's true transgression was referring to you as "hysterical," which you and your partner-in-crime Tiassa took in its worst sense. Because, viewing the world through the scope of your thug logic, words are only ever used in their worst sense. There can be no innocuous comment, because you'd certainly never make one. And when that got hung out to dry by James, you opted for Plan B, which was to hang EF's "crime" on LG. Clumsily played, and totally transparent, but given the shambolic state of the administration and moderator ranks, wholly effective. Congrats.

Finally, you're strawmanning. Not only are you asking us to ignore context, but you're insinuating that the perhaps-inappropriate nature (again, context) of using the word "blowjob" in the workplace amounts to sexual harassment. It doesn't, but you knew that.

It was. There's no hiding that now. It's out in the open. Hence the thin pretenses and subsequent rejiggering of the charges.

As for the rest of this post...context, Bells. Try context.

 

Defending LG sexual harassment <-----> my character (volumes or libraries)
Where's the connection?

(I) am doing the defending of LG regarding the sexual harassment.
If (I) am bad.
then the defense is bad.
mission "ad hominum" accomplished.

I think feeding the trolls feeds your ego, but it wastes your time.
What forum do you moderate Kittamaru? also you're one of the super mods right?