Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by James R, Mar 10, 2007.
I only gave you one infraction.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yes: one infraction worth three points.
You wrote 3 infractions. Check your own shit. I can only conclude that you were trying to incite Prince James into flaming.
Btw. People got banned for posting PMs from moderators.
There is more than one, narrow, meaning to the term 'violent':
My nomenclature was not accurate in the esoteric field of Sciforums Criminal Law. Sorry.
oh, stfu you crybaby.
Not to state the absolute obvious, the Black Policeman's Association did not start and has nothing to do with sciforums. Had any black police officer attempted to start such an association on sciforums, they would have suffered the same fate as you and been told 'no'.
There was no 'goodwill' involved in attempting to start a whites only association/club. You actually thought you might have gotten away with it. So people don't have a problem with some who wish to start such clubs where they work. And? That has nothing to do with sciforums.
You knew that a whites only club would not be welcome on these particular boards. Nor would a blacks only club been welcome. Or any other club that restricts and discriminates against members. Your intention was to flame. Had anyone attempted to form a club based on ANY racial lines, they would have been told no.
Now reasons given for starting this club. You wanted to prove a point of so called hypocrisy and PJ actually does want to have a whites only club to celebrate his colour the superiority said colour gives him.
So which is it? I would have assumed you would have gotten your stories straight before attempting to start this stupidity, but it appears I was mistaken. Do you wish to split the forums and form a whites only club, as PJ does? Or was this just an exercise to show the so called hypocrisy of members and administration of this forum? What hypocrisy has yet to be established, since no one would have ever been allowed to form a club that would segregate and restrict the participation of all members..
ban them. Why?
because this is an attempt to expose flaws in moderation.
and, who's gonna miss them?
I think we're just about done here.
Your attempts to rationalise your actions and exonerate yourself rather than taking responsibility for the views you espouse speaks volumes about you, but doesn't make any progress. And your attempts to throw mud regarding my actions as moderator, in the hope that if you throw enough some of it might stick seem largely to have failed, except perhaps among the few here who already share your racist agenda.
This is a side-track. Frankly, I'm not sure why you brought it up in the first place. If you have an actual point to make, it is probably better off being discussed elsewhere.
Read my first post to this thread. I was very clear.
That's four times I've told you.
Another attempt at deliberate misdirection on your part. Nobody is falling for that.
Further evidence that you haven't understood what little you have read. You just don't listen to advice, do you?
Yes, it is. First offences often attract a warning. If they are moderately serious, they may attract an infraction instead. Serious offences may warrant an immediate ban, either temporary or permanent.
Repeat offences for the same thing tend to attract increasingly harsh moderation.
In the present instance, you have just come back from a 3 day ban for a serious offence. You have now been warned about the penalty which you, personally, will incur if you decide to throw the most abusive language possible at another member of sciforums for a second time.
In fact, you have been let off lightly this time - your second offence. You will probably find that moderators become less and less tolerant as you clock up more and more offences.
One would have thought that you'd been on sciforums long enough to have observed similar patterns in respect of other posters. One would have thought you might have learned something, with your 156 IQ. We'll see.
You will be given the respect you earn and deserve. You can't expect a double standard to be applied. You are not special. You cannot expect to insult others with impunity and not expect that some insults thrown back at you will not be allowed to remain.
Moderation is obviously a job you would find very difficult. It often requires an exercise of delicate judgment, and a balancing of competing claims. This is why the process is not automated, but is undertaken by trusted human beings.
If you wish to discuss this in more detail, perhaps spuriousmonkey or I can explain it to you in a different thread. You've completely missed the point of the article.
Attempted misdirection, or just innocent misunderstanding? Now I'm not sure.
I think anyone expressing a controversial opinion should be banned.
That way it'll leave more room for the real good posters like IceAgeCivilizations, who have something deep and inspiring to say.
Here's how stupidity starts:
It's shielded from the consequences of its own quality.
That opinion may be controversial!
BOOM: 3 days
Here's why stupidity is prefered:
It's more pliable and willing to conform to rules and regulations. It's obtuseness is, seemingly, harmless.
It just thinks superficially and speaks ianities. But it obeys the laws.
Thusly social groups nurture stupidity and allow it to grow, like a cancer, until the entire thing dies.
The Feminization of Man
It is an exercise in futility.
Yackity-yak, don't come back.
You claimed it was "another conversation where I did not read the book in question". The book in question began related back to "Guns, Germs, and Steel".
Or did you mean "IQ and the Wealth of Nations"?
For you are right there, and I shall admit it: I did not read the entire book. I rather depended upon you know, the wealth of reviews out there, to accurately reflect the contents of the book, speciifically in light of the concordance amongst them that such and such things were claimed.
And haven't I told you t hat I don't speak Absurd?
Drawing artificial lines between "superficial" characteristics and not based on biology implies that humanity itself is unimportant.
Moreover, what about tall clubs?
And you fail to even discuss the fact that we are determined creatures. Technically speaking, we have no more choice over our beliefs than we have over our biology, unless you postulate that somehow our minds transcend the laws of causality.
And you just don't listen to science, do you?
Pray tell how calling someone a "cranky cunt" is a serious offense?
I am not even baiting you here: Seriously, what is so bad about "cranky cunt"?
I do not believe I have ever been given a citation for saying "cranky cunt". Or in fact, for ever insulting another member.
"Cranky cunt" is the most abusive language possible?
I thought in Australia, the term "cunt" was relatively common, for one?
Secondly, certainly one can say something worse than "cunt", can't one?
I mean, off hand, I can think of several things I could have called her far more offensive than that. I won't repeat them here, though.
When someone insults me, I insult back.
I have been repeatedly insulted and slandered by yourself and others.
Pray tell why should I not retaliate in kind?
Am I to suppose that moderators have special "flame" privileges?
Here, how about this James R.:
You give yourself, Bells, and several other peoples infractions for unwarrantedly calling me a "racist bigot" and you give me a 5 point infraction for calling Bells a "cranky cunt".
We'll be even then and we can go on like big boys and girls.
I did not initiate the insults. Please check the post numbers.
I doubt you have the scientific integrity to discuss anything relating to things you disagree with, James R. In fact, I do not doubt, I know, for you have shown yourself incapable of removing the goggles of prejudice.
You quoted that all humans are one species. I never claimed otherwise.
Also, it is curious that you once again fail to materialize any evidence whatsoever of my supposed racist remarks.
Actually, the term "cunt" is not relatively common amongst general society in Australia. It is usually a term heard amongst the uneducated and the uncouth. As evidenced by your use of it here I guess.
Oh, and remember when I said this to you in regards to you referring to me as that?...
I was not joking.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Only one point worth responding to in your last post, to correct another misconception of yours which hasn't been corrected before.
It is no more acceptable in Australia than in the United States. If you ever come to Australia, I strongly advise you not to you that term, even if you are accustomed to doing so where you live.
Ok. I think we're done here.
Separate names with a comma.