Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by pjdude1219, Aug 29, 2008.
the title merely perpetuates a vicious cycle
we are all guilty
mw is hardly unique
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
M*W: Thanks, Tiassa. Your advice is well-taken, although I'm not sure how to link one sciforums post into the body of another post.
Also, thanks for the information about taqqiya. I knew this all couldn't have been a figment of my imagination. However, from past experience, I don't think S.A.M. is open to discussion or debate about her religion. In fact, I don't know that much about her religion, and it is not my aim to convert the world to atheism. As I've stated many times, atheism is not an overnight revelation. Also, I don't have any problem with what another person may believe. I would be the first one there to defend their right to believe what they want. The problem I have with S.A.M. is her dishonesty. That is not to say that I blame Islam for S.A.M.'s lying. I blame S.A.M. for S.A.M.'s lying.
In answer to your last question, it would be futile to just try to piss S.A.M. off with sensationalism. The audience is far and wide. Either they're with me or they're against me. In any event, I make them think even if I make them angry. It's all good.
Notes on how to post a link
This is easy enough to explain. Look at the user name above the post. Now look to the right side of the gray box. Beside the timestamp is the post number within the thread. For instance, your post is currently #142.
That number is a hyperlink. Right-click, copy the address, paste it where needed. For instance:
(Note also that the hyperlink displayed above is parsed; do not try to copy it by highlighting the text and hitting CTRL-C. We used to have an option on the advanced post screen to prevent the system from parsing the link display, but it went away once upon a time. I don't think people used it much.)
I tend to take a couple of seconds to strike the "&postcount=" part of the address. For some reason, I have it in my mind—although I've failed to test it lately—that the link will break if an earlier post is deleted and the postcount number changes. The important information is the "p=" number, which is the serial number of the individual post. They are, as far as I can tell, assigned in numerical order according to when each post is entered sitewide. In other words, your post is the 1,997,460th post entered at Sciforums, including deleted posts. (Click here to see the "official" first post ever made at Sciforums; it has Porfiry's name on it, but appears to be a news-clipper article from the original Exosci front page; the date-stamp reflects its entry into the Sciforums database, and not the date of its original posting under a different file structure.)
If the url is a showpost link, the "p=" represents the post that will be shown. In a showthread.php link, the "p=" number will bring the browser to the relevant page, but the target number (#), which is the same as the "p=" number, is required to cause the browser to display that specific post within the thread.
There is also a "t=" in some showthread links; this refers to the thread number. (Copy the url linked to a thread title in the forum view.) For instance, this discussion is "showthread.php?t=84734", or the 84,734th thread in the database. I mention this because the difference between "p=" and "t=" can complicate an attempt to link to a specific post in a showthread view.
I'll consider the rest of your post later today. I should probably get some sleep.
What a fool.
Someone took all the anti-Atheist threads by the SAMe person personally. Why? because that person is an Atheist. And here you are posting your formatted\bulleted BS as usual.
How is this thread any different than one that states: "Atheist do not have morals" or "Atheists societies are mass murderers" ?
It is always when someone has harsh criticism against our own beliefs then it is an insult but when you do it it is an opinion or an observation. HAH.
Do you think the accuracy of the observation could have a role to play as well?
The point is that TiaSSa has his own pet biases which makes it difficult believing anything he states regarding matters such as this. It's like an alcoholic preaching to others about their drinking.
Not to mention the OP, whose own bias can be used as a benchmark.
That's their problem.
I don't see a whole lot of difference. Your point being?
Oh, come now. You're smart enough to understand the difference between a specific observation and a bigoted generalization.
Um ... I think.
You are, aren't you?
I should have thought that would be ideal. 'Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, now let me tell you where the seams will unravel.'
And watch out for where the lizard chewed a hole in the armpit.
That is the whole point. To you it is a specific observation but to the one you are judging it is a bigoted generalization. I think you and PJ both have you favorite issues and they are based on generalizations.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I guess not
Consider that not all discussions are the same. For our purposes, we might look at three reasons for a discussion:
• To explore an idea in general.
• To make a specific point about a subject.
• To annoy a specific group or person.
Of these three, the first two are honorable and among the reasons Sciforums has existed. The last, rather a stupid and unworthy purpose, has been growing in popularity of late. We've always had them; they're an unavoidable part of internet discussion board culture. But of late, they've become more frequent and even less reasonable than usual. In the past, people often made some effort to disguise their quest to annoy as an attempt to explore an idea or make a specific point. These days, people are posting really stupid topics without any pretense of utility other than trying to be annoying and pick fights.
Medicine*Woman, for instance, has a long history of exploring ideas and making specific points, which is why I find the thread in question here so strange.
Your posts at #144, #146, and especially #151 seem to focus much more on personal sentiments than the general issues under discussion.
For instance, you asked a question: How is this thread any different than one that states: "Atheist do not have morals" or "Atheists societies are mass murderers" ?
And I answered: I don't see a whole lot of difference. I also asked a question in return: Your point being?
But you've skipped that question, though nobody's surprised. It would seem, however, that whatever point you had in asking the question in the first place has become a non-issue, since you appear to have abandoned that line. However, I am interested. What was your point?
And why did you abandon a line of discussion that pertained to the exploration of ideas and making specific points about certain subjects in order to accentuate your personalized focus? It suggests that your part in this discussion is more about you than the website, its moderation, bigotry, purpose of discussion, or anything else that could possibly be of any benefit to our community.
No problem, though. We can certainly accommodate and make it about you if you absolutely insist. Frankly, though, I don't see any utility in that.
In the meantime, M*W and I seem to be coming 'round to a more constructive discussion of the issues; at least I hope we are. But it's also why I'm curious about what statement she was originally exploiting. I have a different view of S.A.M. than her critics, and see her posts in a different context. I can't assess M*W's disgust at S.A.M.'s alleged lies without knowing the context. In this way, we can explore certain ideas, make specific points, and thus make the discussion of some greater profit to the community.
Is with John on this one 100%.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Bigoted? To a degree, yes. Racist? No. Does that automatically invalidate her arguments and observations? No.
This is your biggest fault, Bells. You assume that any complaint against S.A.M is driven solely by racism and/or anti-Islamic bigotry. This begs the question as to why other non-white Muslims don't have entire complaint threads dedicated to them.
But allow me to level my own accusation, Bells. I think you defend S.A.M because your own ideology is consistent with hers. You condemn the West, and you condemn white people, so you get all wet when she shows us arrogant white Westerners up. Haha, it's good stuff when S.A.M just makes antagonistic, deceitful posts out of the blue to stir us whitey Western assholes into a frenzy, right?
That's right, Bells. Just chalk all of the complaints against S.A.M down to racism and anti-Islamic bigotry. No doubt that appeals to someone such as yourself, who clearly has a chip on their shoulder against whites and the West. I'm starting to suspect that you yourself are a bigot.
Oh, they can feel free to 'beg to differ'. But you rarely criticise S.A.M for broadbrushing Westerners with bigoted stereotypes. Witness the thread where Fraggle caught S.A.M with her pants down being downright dishonest. Who did you end up criticising? Fraggle. Both S.A.M and Buffalo engage in bigoting stereotyping. Who do you condemn? Buffalo.
Why do you even bother pretending, Bells?
The above is completely and utterly false. You've misrepresented me in almost every way possible.
No. If she's a dishonest troll, she's a dishonest troll.
Try: Antagonistic, bigoted, evasive, dishonest, condescending, and caustic.
I'm surprised you had the time to post this. Aren't you busy instructing your comrades in the art of 'moderator solidarity'? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think it is fairly obvious.
I see. Whatever you say dear. Carrying on.
No. On the contrary. I find any complaint against a member worded as MW worded hers to be racist and bigoted. Regardless of who is on the receiving end of said complaint. I don't really care what religion or nationality Sam happens to belong to. You don't see it as being racist, in fact, you agree with her sentiment. More power to you mate!
"Ha ha" yes. I am going to condemn my own sons and my husband, as well as half my family because they are white. Hell, I am going to burn a cross on my own damn lawn because the greater majority of the people living in my house is white! Must condemn the whiteys.. Does the term "arsehat" mean anything to you?
What makes you think I condemn the West? Why? Because I find every single country's human rights record on this planet to be a joke and I find the fact that every country thinks they are good enough to judge another country, when the absolute opposite is the truth.. that's condemning "the West"?
Where did I do that? I pointed out MW's racism and bigotry in that particular post, amongst many she posted in this particular thread. Regardless of who her target would have been, whether they were white, black, tan, blue, green, my comments would have been the same. Does that bother you somewhat?
That's because Sam was not being dishonest. Nor was she lying. His post was a rant.. I guess the greater majority of us don't want to admit the truth when it's so god damn ugly.
I criticise Sam where I criticise her. I do it in private, away from the bloodthirsty mob that has inhabited this forum of late. Does that bother you? And here I thought you found the practice of displaying PM's and private discussions in the general forum to be rude and in bad taste.
Sam knows exactly where I stand on certain issues and we disagree on a hell of a lot of things. Just because I don't follow her around, sniffing her butt crack like the rest of you do, ready to jump on her regardless of what she says.. In short, you and others on this forum are obsessed. You can't tell when she is joking or not. Even when she agrees with you, you can't even understand her and instead launch an attack. You're lucky she is as patient as she is. If she had my personality, you'd be running home and crying for your mummy by the time I'd be through with you. I guess she has more patience with petulant children than I do.
I guess one day you will learn the meaning of "the West". I'll give you a hint. Think political ideology and practice. Now go google.
The 60watt globe running low, eh MH? Or is the dimmer switch set to low?
Of course I have dear. You da man! You know all. And yes, that was sarcasm.
Yes you are. Mirror images.
Yes, but I just wanted you to clarify.
Which doesn't necessarily invalidate her arguments. Arguments must ultimately be judged on their merit, independent of the mindset of the poster. Doing otherwise amounts to ad hominem.
Oh my, you live with whites, so that means that you can't hold bigoted beliefs about the white collective in your mind? Guess there is no such thing as a married chauvinistic pig, or a white racist with a black best friend, right?
You associate all whites and Westerners with the crimes of a few whites and Westerners. That's the equivalent of condemning all Muslims for the crimes of a few. The difference? It's reprehensible to stereotype Muslims (hate speech, perhaps?), but quite okay to stereotype whites/Westerners as callous killers. I mean, hey, it's only poetic justice, right?
But the remarks you quoted MW as having made were not inherently racist and/or bigoted. You interpreted them as being racist and bigoted.
Yes she was, Bells. She was flat out lying. "Also, what does it say about the American public that the torture and prisons are not an issue that is ever discussed?" is a blatant, bold-faced lie, which Fraggle debunked in his 'rants'. The torture and prisons ARE an issue that is discussed in America. For crying out loud, I've heard about it from the little bit of American news we get on the SBS channel.
How can you not see that she's lying? I find it beyond belief. She's really got you fooled.
S.A.M's original post was a rant. She also lied. Fraggle called her on it. And you criticised... wait for it... Fraggle! Because he got fed up with her bullshit, like numerous other posters, including moderators such as (Q), spidergoat, and superstring.
If you say so, dear.
Not nearly as much as your continued defense of dishonest moderators.
Strange, you seem drawn to any threads or posts where criticism of S.A.M is involved. If anything, you seem to have a peculiar affinity for S.A.M's buttcrack!
Regardless of what she says? Bullshit. If anything, I make a conscious effort to avoid even reading any of S.A.M's shit.
Yeah, we're all incredibly lucky that sciforums has a first class troll like S.A.M.
The West has a lot of different meanings, depending on who and how it's being used. Perhaps you're the one who needs to peruse google? You might need to take your nose out of S.A.M's buttcrack first.
Notes for a disaster
As I noted already, I never resorted to idiotic statements like, "You don't need sources to back up common knowledge, which is what I've been sticking to". And when you asked, I provided, instead of saying something so absolutely moronic as, "But what I've stated is such common fucking knowledge, I doubt that posting the stats is necessary."
Quit making excuses. Admit the reality: you couldn't back yourself up then, so you looked for a way out.
My bad. I had thought I linked to the larger images. However, you asked, and I still intend to provide:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
• • •
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To reiterate, especially given how quickly your forget:
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.
Nope. I took up your gesture of friendship as genuine. When it proved to not be—that is, when you continued to be a dishonest, blithering hatemonger—I decided your gesture wasn't genuine.
Not so difficult to comprehend. Apparently, though, you seem to have difficulty understanding that friends occasionally demonstrate some kind of respect from time to time. Tell me, do you lie to, complain about, and whine at all of your friends like that?
You brought the whole AIM thing up just to have one more thing to bawl about.
To the other, I'm so sorry to have hurt your feelings. Given the consistency of your disregard for other people's feelings, it's rather quite easy to forget you have any.
Okay, that last wasn't fair. Especially given how much time you spend whining.
It is exactly what it is stated to be, there is no question about it and it has been confirmed by Muslims here and on a variety of websites already produced.
Are we to now hear YOUR version?
That is complete bullshit, T, and you know it. Religion doesn't state the obvious about human nature because religion knows very little about human nature. Religion, over generations of rule on this planet has taught people to lie, in that it has removed the ability to reason and rationalize, which is exactly what lying corrupts, in us and in other people when we lie to them. The problem is that they're so indoctrinated into their belief systems, theists will inadvertently lie whenever their belief systems are threatened or criticized. Hasn't that been made amply clear to you yet?
Or, more precisely, common among theists whose worldview has been corrupted by religion.
Separate names with a comma.