The moderation of this forum and bigotry towards islam

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by pjdude1219, Aug 29, 2008.

  1. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Give it a fucking rest.
    You made an idiot of yourself and now you're compounding it.
    Get a hobby, go away.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    no really.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    It's not always in the religion subforum, it's in all of them, and it's for the stupidest reasons.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Tiassa:
    No wonder Plazma continues to support you as a moderator, when you distort events in your favour.

    What actually happened was:

    1. Angrybellsprout made an assertion which, IMHO, was self-apparent.

    2. You demanded he provide evidence to support his assertion, pointing out that even a claim which may be self-apparent to one person may not be likewise to another person, and hence must be supported.

    3. I pointed out that previously in the thread you yourself had made an assertion without supporting evidence (ie.that 'women's night' in bars is used so that guys have a greater chance of getting a lay).

    4. I then concluded that it was hypocritical of you to condemn Angrybellsprout for making unsupported assertions, when you did likewise. Essentially, I held you up to the standards you held him to.

    5. You then posted a source to support you assertion. I apologised and admitted I was wrong.

    6. Later in the thread, you adopted your mod hat and green font, and essentially intimidated myself and Metakron into providing evidence for an assertion which I did not make.

    7. I told you to go fuck yourself (although not in those words). [Note that if you had have asked politely without donning your mod hat and acting like a Gestapo, I would have patiently explained what my stance on the matter actually was.]

    8. You warned me, and later banned me for a trumped up charge.

    Anyone whose ideology conflicts with your worldview is either dishonest, and/or an elitist. Edit: Or delusional/stupid, although you tend to use those labels less frequently.

    Why would I do that? Do you think I have the time to comb through your posts? Do you think I even have a decent net connection? Some of us here don't have an infinite amount of free time and patience at our disposal, which I (as well as numerous other posters) have requested you keep your posts concise.

    But I rest assured that anyone who's ever disagreed with you knows what you're like. In the past, we've had entire threads devoted to your bitchy and dishonest conduct.

    That's such a big difference, Tiassa.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Either way, you ceased conversing with me on AIM over a spat on a public forum, which is rather lame. You couldn't leave bad feelings from the sciforums on sciforums, could you? Which is a pity, you're such a goddamn cunt on the forums, but you're quite nice in private, where you don't feel the compulsion to belittle and talk down to anyone who disagrees with you.

    At the end of the day, it's your choice who you talk to in private. But don't try and smear me as antagonistic when I reached out to you and tried to form a friendship, and then you cut me off and turn around and ban me over bullshit. Because that's what is was, bullshit. I didn't agree with a comment you made and I responded with outrage, as if friends don't ever disagree or argue. Something so trivial made you cut off contact. And then you claim I'm antagonistic. Unbelievable.

    You mean, since my 'gesture of friendship' didn't shift my beliefs to a more left-wing ideology? Did you add me to AIM to get to know me better, or make me into a little liberal?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  8. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Gustav:

    WTF, where do you get off posting private correspondence for the public to view? That's incredibly impolite.
     
  9. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The moderation of this forum is simply crazy, that's all there is to it.
     
  10. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Ophiolite:
    Everyone has an agenda, including myself. I never claimed otherwise.

    What matters is what the agenda is, and how you act upon that agenda.

    For example, is your primary agenda to provide sound argumentation to support your ideology, provide a critique of opposing ideologies, and win people over to your point of view? Do you want to get something off your chest, expressing your socially inappropriate opinions from behind the mask of anonymity? Or do you just want to fuck with posters and piss them off? Most posters, even the incredibly condescending James R and Tiassa, fall into the first and/or category. However, a select few posters fall into the third. That isn't to say that they don't want to also argue in favour of their ideology, but such a desire is merely secondary. They are antagonistic by nature and desire nothing more than to intimidate and humiliate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    These are the world's tiniest violins playing "My Heart Bleeds For You" ... in stereo

    In the first place, as I pointed out in response to your non-apology, if you had actually read my post and responded to what it actually said, you might have noticed two statements that covered the dimensions of your poor excuse.

    And then, of course, immediately before your non-apology°—

    —you made the very assertion

    —you now claim you didn't make.

    Perhaps if you had not already so rudely inserted yourself into the discussion of providing evidence to support assertions in order to protect your apparently incapable friend, your continued intransigence would not have stood out in such grotesque relief.

    Yeah, you're such a victim. Poor fuh-reakin' you.

    Checking the records, I see that your ban on January 23, 2008 (Pacific Standard Time) was executed for the offense of reposting a deleted post ... all of eight minutes after you posted it the first time. You really did want to tell me to cram the attitude, didn't you?

    Reposting moderated content is conduct that earns a ban.

    What's really sad is that I struck the first post as being off-topic. Had you worked the whole "cram the attitude" remark into a post with at least some substance, I would have let it stand as I've allowed many such posts to stand.

    One of the things you might not understand is that I make sure all of my suspensions are documented for administrative review. You know, it's full of the usual stuff that you seem to have no taste for: explanations, links, interpretations, understandings of rules, and whatever other information I think might help an administrator decide to overturn my action.

    Would you prefer I simply presume you stupid? After all, your angry denunciations tend to suggest—and quite consistently at that—a certain insensitivity toward subtleties. For instance, even with members I've fought with furiously, you'll find there are times we simply disagree. And then there are times I think they're being dishonest. That you're apparently unable to recognize the former is your own problem. Stop trying to make it everyone else's.

    If it's genuinely important enough, then sure. Then again, if it was genuinely important, you wouldn't be so reckless about your accusations.

    Yes, you're such a freakin' victim, aren't you? Oh, poor you.

    See above regarding your point #8.

    I started a new account and communicated with you because you asked. It's not about shifting your beliefs to a more left-wing ideology, unless you would go so far as to consider notions such as decency and integrity the exclusive provenance of leftists. As amusing as that notion might strike me, I don't even go that far.

    Really, dude, paranoia will destroy ya.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° non-apology — You know, if you ever actually developed a sense of integrity, that would be sufficient. It's not an apology I'm after, Lepus. Rather, I would prefer that you get honest, cultivate some good faith, and actually contribute something positive to this community.
     
  12. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Tiassa:
    My mistake. However, I did admit that I was in the wrong. "Clearly I was incorrect regarding that issue in the United States." is a pretty unambiguous statement.

    Correct. I never claimed that "You are advised that you should provide a reference citation stating specifically that if a man (and only a man) is unable (incapable) of paying the court's ordered alimony/support, his driver's (MetaKron) and/or professional (Mountainhare) licenses will be taken away°.

    So now you're condemning me for pointing out that you were demanding standards of angrybellsprout which you didn't hold yourself up to? Do you find it anathema that regular posters would dare hold authority figures such as moderators up to their own standards?

    May god help us when people start defending their friends.

    I am almost certain that I did not repost any deleted material, although there is the possibility I could have posted something related out of ignorance. I'd need to see the records.

    It's also important to note that I sent multiple queries to the administration asking why I had been banned, and received no response. If your ruling had been so cut and dried, and you have the appropriate records, then it would have been but a simple task to clarify why exactly I was banned, along with a copy of the deleted post I had reposted.

    I know that you don't have a high opinion of my honesty (you apparently don't have a high opinion of many posters honesty), but I'm being sincere when I say that I was totally clueless as to why I was banned. Having my inquiries stiffed and ignored was incredibly insulting, clear evidence that you and the other moderators do not take me in 'good faith'.

    How incredibly antagonistic of me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yet you cut off contact after a squabble on sciforums over male privilege. Either you're remarkably sensitive, or you were a partisan trying to win me over to your point of view.

    You might try arguing that you cut me off because I was being 'dishonest', 'elitist' and 'rude'. But given that you thought that of me prior to allowing me to add you to AIM (in fact, we had a long history of bad blood, which is why I made an attempt at reconcilation), it's not a plausible excuse.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    The irony in that post is, well, blatant.

    Tell me MW, do you have any idea how racist and bigoted you are sounding by not only calling her a terrorist, an Indian Muslim (termed in such a fashion that it be an insult), state that you feel sick that she is in your country and then, to top off that cake of bigotry with a rotten cherry, you tell her she should just go back to "Muslim India".

    And you accuse her of being a racist and a bigot? Your hypocrisy is astounding. You attempt to hide your own racism by saying 'I have Muslim friends and I have Indian Muslim friends, blah blah'... That's kind of what all racists say when they are attempting to hide their own racism and bigotry out of sheer embarrassment. And you know what? You should be embarrassed. Hell, I'm feeling embarrassed for you. And I don't even know you.

    Tell me, do you have a pitchfork and torch to go with that white cloak and hood on you're wearing on head?
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Come on Bells she's a wicca witch not a kkk member. Maybe I'm not here often enough but it seems folks need to chill out when it comes to Sam. Sam may push buttons but then her opposition undermines themselves with irrational hatred towards her. If she's baiting then they are being hooked like trout. Silly willys
     
  15. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Bells:
    Even if MW is 'racist and bigoted', that doesn't excuse S.A.M for being likewise. Like Tiassa, you're quick to criticise Buffalo Roam and MW for their lapses in decency, but fail to do likewise for S.A.M.
     
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    On the contrary sweetheart. I am very open in any criticism I might have of Sam, just as she is of me. But unlike the majority, I don't rant on and on about it and keep ranting on about it. I don't drag the same issue over into every single thread she is posting in. I don't sit there and obsess over it.

    You know the saying "let it go"? Apply it.
     
  17. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Bells:
    Baldurdash. You don't apply the same level of scrunity to S.A.M that you do to individuals such as myself, Buffalo, Medicine Woman, or hell, any critic of S.A.Ms.

    Some critics of S.A.Ms can indeed be bigoted scumbags, but that's incidental in regards to the nature of S.A.M's posts.

    Perhaps posters do the above because S.A.M uses the same dishonest tactics in every thread she posts in? If S.A.M is entitled to spam sciforums with her bigoted garbage, then her opponents should be entitled to spam sciforums with their complaints (which, yes, tend to be bigoted).

    The philosophy 'let it go' might be appropriate if S.A.M ceased to pull her antagonistic stunts. I'm sure that many posters here would be willing to let bygones be bygones, but S.A.M continues to rub salt in the wounds with her deliberately inflammatory material.

    Quite simply, if you act like a dishonest troll, then be prepared to cop the fallout. Freedom of expression works both ways, Bells.
     
  18. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Bells:
    S.A.M excuses terrorist activities, shifting culpability from the terrorists back onto NATO. So Medicine Woman accusation is well founded.

    So now it's such a terrible to call someone an Indian Muslim? Political correctness gone mad.

    I second MW on this one. S.A.M should indeed go back to Muslim India. If a foreigner despises their adopted country and the people who live within it, then they should indeed go back to where they came from. Nobody forces S.A.M to live in the U.S.A.

    If you hate us so much, then have some balls and become an insurgent. But don't go parasitising off us, propogating hatred and lies while you are a guest in our country.
     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    excellent form, guys

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I see.

    So if you can't beat them, join 'em, eh MH?

    Let me see if I get this right. You admit yourself that MW is being bigotted and racist, but you are seconding her comments and arguments?

    If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck.... Quack for me boy!

    Crossburning on Sam's lawn at 10pm?

    Don't I?

    Sam and others would beg to differ.

    I'd suggest you go back and actually educate yourself about what it is she is supposedly "spamming" on these forums.

    Does it make you uncomfortable to be confronted by hypocrisy MH?

    In other words, you are unable to handle the fact that the greater majority of her arguments does have some merit. That possibly, just possibly, we are wrong to be at war in Iraq, that our actions in that country and others has and will lead to the deaths of innocent civilians. That when you and others start to spout off about just how bad Muslims are, "evil Muslims", etc, and she reminds you of just how bad the blessed West is and has no right to cast moral judgments, you consider that rubbing salt in your wounds?

    No. If she points our your hypocrisy, she is automatically a dishonest troll.

    I know she is one sided in her arguments. It's not the West she hates. It's the ideology it demands of others but fails to live up to itself that is the issue.
     
  21. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    Who watched "Dont mess with the Zohan" ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Muslims, "People dont like us because we are muslims"
    Jews, "People dont like us because they think we are you"
     
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    (Insert title here)

    Well, let's review a few critical components of the issue:

    Topic title: "Equal rights to being punched in the face"
    Topic subject: Inequality in the way the law treats men and women.
    Discussion elements:

    Angrybellsprout (#138): Complains that certain people "revel in the fact that the law isn't applied equally in the courts or by the police, and hide behind this to justify their violence."

    C1ay (#140): Challenges ABS to provide evidence.

    Angrybellsprout (#145): Posts cover of book in response to C1ay.

    Metakron (#146): Inquires about book, raises issue of "taking a man's driver's license away from him when he isn't able to pay enough of his assigned child support, thus reducing him to being unable to pay any child support at all".

    Mountainhare (#148): Adds to MetaKron's assertion, condemns practice, and notes, "The anti-male legal system at work, in all its splendour!"​

    Here, let's review that last discussion element one more time:

    Given the topic itself, its progress, and that explicit rebuke of "The anti-male legal system", it would be laughable that you should claim you never made an assertion of ridiculous, sex-based injustice, except that, quite frankly, your blatant dishonesty is pathetic.

    One would think that ABS is capable of answering for himself. Well, okay; one would have thought. We've learned better since then.

    And, as you seem to forget, I did indeed provide support for the statement you chose to question. And at no time did I attempt to duck your demand with such stupid and cowardly excuses as—

    "You don't need sources to back up common knowledge, which is what I've been sticking to." (#1721152/126)​

    —or—

    "But what I've stated is such common fucking knowledge, I doubt that posting the stats is necessary." (#1722113/154)​

    Frankly, I figured the note—

    —would clear up confusion about why I made that official demand, but since as you have chosen to omit that from your current considerations, it would appear that the obvious is insufficient.

    Very well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    |

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Important elements to note:

    Trashcan icon: Indicates that post has been deleted.
    Time stamp 1: January 23, 2008 — 12.31 AM (PST)
    Time stamp 2: January 23, 2008 — 12.39 AM (PST)
    User generated text: "Cram the attitude"​

    As I noted, "all of eight minutes after you posted it the first time".

    These images are taken from posts #1722203 and #172210, in topic, "Do women feel they are entitled because they are female".

    To reiterate a point I made earlier:

    What's really sad is that I struck the first post as being off-topic. Had you worked the whole "cram the attitude" remark into a post with at least some substance, I would have let it stand as I've allowed many such posts to stand.​

    This has long been an issue at Sciforums, and our answer has been pretty much consistent: We let certain insults pass if they are part of a substantial and relevant post. For reasons unknown, however, some people have a hard time grasping that concept.

    That's your issue with the administration. If you wish to complain to them yet again, you are certainly welcome to do so. We do keep a record of both temporary and permanent bans in which moderators note who they've banned and why. The record of this ban has been available to our administrators since January 23, 2008, 1.01 AM (PST). Barring specific authorization or direct order from an administrator, however, I will not be posting an image capture of our internal discussions. If you wish to beg a new review, however, it is post #263 in our temporary ban record.

    While, obviously, this ban cannot be undone, it is worth noting that certain actions included in that general record have, in fact, been overruled. In other words, any ban I execute can be repealed if it is deemed inappropriate. Do not doubt that our administrators give regular attention to those records.

    As I noted—and you quoted:

    Since your "gesture of friendship" brought no improvement in your conduct, I decided to not bother pandering to your fantasies of victimhood.​

    Given that you continued to behave rudely and dishonestly, I don't see how what I thought of you beforehand reduces the plausibility of what I have told you. After all, one would not be unreasonable to expect that a genuine "gesture of friendship" would bring at least slight relief from such insufferable animosity.

    Friendship is not a one-way thing, Lepus. I tried lightening up on your pal, just like you asked. And, indeed, to borrow your words, I tried to be "quite nice" during our private interactions° in hope that your gesture was, indeed, genuine.

    Alas, it was not to be. Life goes on.

    I have entertained your dishonesty, Lepus, far beyond what you might expect of others around this site, and clearly beyond what we might expect of you. Please consider carefully whether you wish to continue your current tantrum, or if it might be best, instead, to simply cut your losses and move on to, well, something more productive.
    _____________________

    Notes:

    ° private interactions — Given that you chose to raise the issue of our prior private interactions, the irony of your complaint to (Gustav)—

    "WTF, where do you get off posting private correspondence for the public to view? That's incredibly impolite."​

    —is almost appreciable. To the other, though, and to again borrow your words:

    "It depends on the poster's history, and the content of their post."​

    One would be tempted to call out your hypocrisy, although the complaint is so straightforward that one might also be tempted to consider the irony deliberate. On balance, though, and according to your own standard, the weight of evidence tends toward hypocrisy.
     
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I'm glad there is someone else out there that's spotted that too. Lot's of people complain about SAM for her comments but they never identify where those comments stem from, that would be people like Buffalo Roam and even Lepustimidus who's agenda is actually Hate Speech. They are basically here to rile up peoples feathers on subjects, not to cast debate but to forward their own hate ridden agenda, this is why it was right for Asguard to call them Bigots.

    SAM's passion for responding is purely down to retort, there is only so much savagery a person can take before they too become savage. (And this of course is proportion of their agenda, to make people look worse than "bad". Bad being the way those propagandists look.)

    I do believe that we (The Moderators) are here to deal with this Hate Speech and we have been pandering to these people far too long. If they can't cool their heels and stop their agenda driven attacks & personal smear postings, then they will be removed from this forum, Post Hence.
     

Share This Page