exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I'm acquainted with one, whom I get on quite well with. I think it's pretty fraudulent in his case.
Insulting one's allies - to what end?
- Thread starter Sarkus
- Start date
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Yes, we wouldn't want to have the discussions veering off from insulting ones allies...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm political but nonbinary.
Sarkus:
It seems I have to spell it out for you. For now, I'm willing to take your protest at face value.
You wrote:
This is a lie that Tiassa has told many times, so I can see how you could come to believe it if you weren't very careful - or didn't care - about trying to get to the facts of the matter.
I am now telling you that Tiassa lied about the "secrets". There are no secrets of the kind of he snidely hints at. I have always been very open about how I go about moderating posts here and I have discussed various "policy" decisions and debates at length in the public forums, particularly with Tiassa, who constantly wants to revisit such matters (especially ones where our respective opinions were clearly recorded more than 8 years ago). All of those public discussions are still available for anybody who wants to go searching.
As for private messaging, Tiassa will assert - or more often snidely try to imply - that I shared "private" secrets about my secret moderation "policies" with him in private messaging, but that although he would like to share those private messages with you (because he only has your best interests at heart and because he only wants the Truth to out), he is prevented from doing so because I forbade him. Importantly, Tiassa will assert that my "secret policies", which - for some unexplained reason - I supposedly shared with him, are in fundamental conflict with what I wrote in the public discussion threads covering all the same matters. This, despite the fact that any private conversations tended to happen in parallel with the public discussions and largely covered all of the same ground in a similar way.
If you've read our site posting guidelines, one of those guidelines says "Private messages are private". Specifically, it says that it is inappropriate to publically repost a message that another member sent to you by private messaging, unless you have their expressed permission to do. This rule exists because it upholds a standard of polite and civil behaviour - what in an older era might have been called a principle of how a gentleman is supposed to behave, as contrasts with the behaviour of a man with no honour or integrity. It is also a widely-expected standard of behaviour in the "real world".
It is true that I have reminded Tiassa that he does not have my permission to republish private communications I sent to him in the past, in the expectation that they would remain confidential.
In expecting that my private messages will remain private unless I want to publish them, I hold Tiassa to the same standard I hold everybody else to here, myself included. In the past, I have on occasion - at the request of an aggrieved party - issued official warnings for the breach of trust that takes place when somebody publishes a private communication without permission.
Now, coming back to you, Sarkus: you can believe Tiassa's tale of secret policies and censorship of secrets if you want to. But if you do, and you don't have any evidence either way, then you're drinking the Tiassa Kool-aid, like I said. Now, you're in the position of having my word and his. I'm sure you'll make of them what you will.
One more thing: there is relevant evidence, apart from Tiassa's lies and my say-so about his lies. That evidence is the 20 year record of how I have actually moderated during my time at sciforums. You could ask yourself, for instance: has James R moderated the forum according to the principles he has espoused publically over the years, or has he moderated it in a way that conflicts with those public statements? Has James R moderated in a way consistent with Tiassa's claim that James R must have a secret agenda that is partly or entirely at odds with what he says his agenda is? Or does the record show that claims of a hidden agenda or secret policies is most likely a lie, deliberately told by a man with a petty hatred and a chip on his shoulder?
A careful and interested person might consider such evidence, rather than drinking somebody's Kool-aid.
I don't much care what you do.
Now, fuck off, Sarkus.
It seems I have to spell it out for you. For now, I'm willing to take your protest at face value.
You wrote:
Here, you implied that you believe that somebody "higher up" than Tiassa told him he couldn't reveal "secrets" about how sciforums is moderated. And the only "higher up" person this could reasonably be referring to is me.Sarkus said:
This is a lie that Tiassa has told many times, so I can see how you could come to believe it if you weren't very careful - or didn't care - about trying to get to the facts of the matter.
I am now telling you that Tiassa lied about the "secrets". There are no secrets of the kind of he snidely hints at. I have always been very open about how I go about moderating posts here and I have discussed various "policy" decisions and debates at length in the public forums, particularly with Tiassa, who constantly wants to revisit such matters (especially ones where our respective opinions were clearly recorded more than 8 years ago). All of those public discussions are still available for anybody who wants to go searching.
As for private messaging, Tiassa will assert - or more often snidely try to imply - that I shared "private" secrets about my secret moderation "policies" with him in private messaging, but that although he would like to share those private messages with you (because he only has your best interests at heart and because he only wants the Truth to out), he is prevented from doing so because I forbade him. Importantly, Tiassa will assert that my "secret policies", which - for some unexplained reason - I supposedly shared with him, are in fundamental conflict with what I wrote in the public discussion threads covering all the same matters. This, despite the fact that any private conversations tended to happen in parallel with the public discussions and largely covered all of the same ground in a similar way.
If you've read our site posting guidelines, one of those guidelines says "Private messages are private". Specifically, it says that it is inappropriate to publically repost a message that another member sent to you by private messaging, unless you have their expressed permission to do. This rule exists because it upholds a standard of polite and civil behaviour - what in an older era might have been called a principle of how a gentleman is supposed to behave, as contrasts with the behaviour of a man with no honour or integrity. It is also a widely-expected standard of behaviour in the "real world".
It is true that I have reminded Tiassa that he does not have my permission to republish private communications I sent to him in the past, in the expectation that they would remain confidential.
In expecting that my private messages will remain private unless I want to publish them, I hold Tiassa to the same standard I hold everybody else to here, myself included. In the past, I have on occasion - at the request of an aggrieved party - issued official warnings for the breach of trust that takes place when somebody publishes a private communication without permission.
Now, coming back to you, Sarkus: you can believe Tiassa's tale of secret policies and censorship of secrets if you want to. But if you do, and you don't have any evidence either way, then you're drinking the Tiassa Kool-aid, like I said. Now, you're in the position of having my word and his. I'm sure you'll make of them what you will.
One more thing: there is relevant evidence, apart from Tiassa's lies and my say-so about his lies. That evidence is the 20 year record of how I have actually moderated during my time at sciforums. You could ask yourself, for instance: has James R moderated the forum according to the principles he has espoused publically over the years, or has he moderated it in a way that conflicts with those public statements? Has James R moderated in a way consistent with Tiassa's claim that James R must have a secret agenda that is partly or entirely at odds with what he says his agenda is? Or does the record show that claims of a hidden agenda or secret policies is most likely a lie, deliberately told by a man with a petty hatred and a chip on his shoulder?
A careful and interested person might consider such evidence, rather than drinking somebody's Kool-aid.
I don't much care what you do.
Now, fuck off, Sarkus.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Which post is that? I do not want to read more Tiassa posts than I need to.
There was no such implication, and whether it's true or not is irrelevant to what I wrote. Tiassa believes it, and hence the manner of his response. Simple as that. There is no implication in what I wrote that I believe what he believes. Are you still trying to say that because I can comprehend what he's doing means that I necessarily believe it? That would be a tad bizarre, wouldn't it, for from someone who must now believe they're from New Zealand??
Thanks, but all of this is irrelevant to what I wrote, and I'm no longer particularly interested in whatever issue you have with Tiassa. So don't waste your effort.
Does that mean I can't comprehend what he's written? That I must find it "impenetrable", as has been suggested it is? That would just be absurd.
I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am not privy to all the detail. I have your view on matters, and I have his view. That's it. So, please, stop assuming that just because I understand what he's saying that I therefore necessarily believe it. Your fallacious assumption that I do is all on you. Your reactions that stem from that assumption are all on you. For some reason you want to apply a guilt by association on anyone that doesn't treat Tiassa the way that you think he should be treated. That's all on you. Deal with it.
I don't.
Hence I'm not drinking "Tiassa Kool-aid" as you erroneously claimed me to be.
See how simple all this really is?
Yes. I will, thanks. As will everyone else. That's how forming opnions work, don'tyaknow.
Again, not relevant to anything I've said, but rather only relevant to your assumption that because I comprehend Tiassa's posts that I must have drunk the "Tiassa Kool-aid"... to wit:
Are we done now, or are you going to keep harassing me despite once again doing nothing wrong besides, in this case, not treating Tiassa's posts the way you want everyone to treat them?
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
I understand some black people use something to lighten their skin so its not ‘black’, it’s a personal choice.
If by “ Orange felon “ you mean Trump, is that a personal attack on his choice of skin colour ?
Just asking.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
He is trying to squeeze it in before Trump takes office was my point and he will not be happy about that. Any Mauritius are holding out for a better deal last time I check, he may run out of time to finalize.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes, we wouldn't want to have the discussions veering off from insulting ones allies...
You think Trump will consider this fast track deal before he takes an office an insult? Sure it is not a direct insult like the DP calling him an embarrassment and buffoon, or the foreign secretary calling him.. " a woman-hating, neo-Nazi-sympathising sociopath. He is also a profound threat to the international order that has been the foundation of Western progress for so long."
Perhaps the timing is just co-incidence.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Just to put a little bit of positive spin on this. Sky news last July.
" Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government have been keen to stress that they will work with whoever the US electorate returns to the White House to protect the so-called US/UK "special relationship".
Look Donald...I said some things, you said some things....
I am sure everything will come out in the wash once he takes office.
" Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government have been keen to stress that they will work with whoever the US electorate returns to the White House to protect the so-called US/UK "special relationship".
Look Donald...I said some things, you said some things....
I am sure everything will come out in the wash once he takes office.
See some Canadian politician trolling Trump to the effect that California,Washington ,Oregon ,Vermont and another NE State may have more in common with Canada than USA.
Washington joining Canada? Don't bet your Timbits | Cascadia Daily News
Canadian lawmaker called for WA, OR and CA to become 11th Canadian province
www.cascadiadaily.com
Last edited:
Sarkus:
Or did you just want to repost it at random, recklessly oblivious to whether it was true or not? Why would you do that?
If you're all good with Tiassa's recent behaviour towards me, that says a lot about you, and none of it is good.
Perhaps you should deal with that.
So, are we done now? Or are we going to continue through the usual cycle of Sarkusian pedantry and self-righteousness, combined with childish insults and the like?
Last time we did this dance of yours, I stopped when I realised that you never would. I don't suppose this time around will be any different. But we'll see.
Can you stop? Do you think telling me to fuck off, twice, hasn't got everything you wanted to say off your chest?
I bet you have more to say.
There was such an implication. If there had not been, I would not have commented on your post.
You just wanted to amplify his assertions, for no particular reason. Right. Sure.
No. I'm saying you believe it because you posted to re-assert his lie as if it was the truth.
Or did you just want to repost it at random, recklessly oblivious to whether it was true or not? Why would you do that?
Your snideness is also an imitation of Tiassa's. It's not a good look.
Sadly, I already did. On both of you.
Take it up with the person who said that. No, wait. Don't do that. This is already tiresome, as it always is when you go off like this. No need to drag other people into your pedantic nonsense.
Then you're not a good judge of character. Or perhaps you're too self-absorbed to notice that kind of thing.
Why did you feel it was necessary to inject yourself into this thread, to support Tiassa?
My conclusion was not based on any assumption that you understood him.
I made no fallacious assumption.
It's always the other guy's fault when you're involved. Funny, that.
If you're unable to recognise Tiassa for what he is, I'm afraid that's all on you. I worked it out a while ago.
If you're all good with Tiassa's recent behaviour towards me, that says a lot about you, and none of it is good.
Perhaps you should deal with that.
The proof is in the pudding, Sarkus. Who do you think you're fooling?
It was a piece of good advice that you could have taken to do better in the future. I'm not at all surprised that you don't see any relevance. No doubt, you'll keep on making the same kind of clumsy error of judgment in future. It's because you think this kind of thing is unimportant.
I thought you were fucking off. Then you didn't.
So, are we done now? Or are we going to continue through the usual cycle of Sarkusian pedantry and self-righteousness, combined with childish insults and the like?
You stuck your nose in. You can stick it back out any time you like.
Last time we did this dance of yours, I stopped when I realised that you never would. I don't suppose this time around will be any different. But we'll see.
Can you stop? Do you think telling me to fuck off, twice, hasn't got everything you wanted to say off your chest?
I bet you have more to say.
It would be wonderful if you could treat Tiassa's posts in the way they should be treated. But I don't think you're very good at working that kind of thing out. You seem proudly oblivious to such matters.
To be fair, Sarkus responded to Pinball's post, and then you responded to that.
Personally, I interpreted that post more as a response to tldr; type reactions than anything else. Everyone's free to interpret "motivations" behind posts and responses as they wish, but it's entirely reasonable to note that a person is complaining about not receiving an answer to a query, when, in fact, said "answers" are contained within the post the party is complaining about. The "answer" may not be as direct or straightforward or concise as one might prefer, but it's still an answer. I think it more apt to complain when one receives only strawmen, non sequiturs and misdirection in response to a query or argument--those are more legitimately characterized as "non-answers" imho.
There was no implication. That you inferred incorrectly is on you, and just because you think you inferred something does not mean that it was actually implied. Sure, if you add in unwarranted assumptions you could probably infer anything you want from any post you want. But, based on what I actually wrote, there was no such implication, and thus any inference on your part is faulty.
Please bear this in mind: just because you think you have inferred something does not mean that it was therefore implied. It only means that you think it was implied. In this case you are wrong.
Simples.
No, I replied to someone claiming that it was "impenetrable shit" (even if it was really, as it happens, just a case of the person thinking it a case of tl;dr). The fact that I could explain to him what it contained showed that it was not "impenetrable". Anything else you're reading into it is on you, not me.
Simples.
No, James R. I explained what he wrote to someone who claimed, erroneously, that it was "impenetrable". The rest is on you.
Nothing random about it. I understood what Tiassa wrote. Exchemist seemed not to, and referred to it as "impenetrable". I hoped to show that it was not, by explaining what it contained. Simples.
The rest is on you, and your deliberate effort to continually harass me, yet again, for things that you merely assume I have done.
No, my snideness is all my own.
I already did take it up with the person who said it, via my response to Pinball1970 (#60), James R. That was when you decided to intervene and harass me for it. See, this is on you, and your desire to harass me, when all I had done was simply clarify what Tiassa wrote.
I don't post here or reply to people based on character, but on what they write. You should try that sometime, because at the moment you seem to have this massive Tiassa-sized chip on your shoulder, and a Tiassa-shaped hole in your brain.
???
If by "support" you mean how dare I try to explain what Tiassa's post contained, for those that thought it "impenetrable"... yeah, how dare I!
If you mean "agree with everything he's said in his post" then I don't recognise the premise upon which your question is based, as it is not based on what I wrote.
Then it's not based on anything I have written in this thread, as that is all I did: showed that I understood him (or at least think I do) sufficiently to summarise for others. As such it means you're harassing me based on external matters. Please desist from such behaviour.
Okay, then let's say that based upon what I have written in this thread it is a wholly unwarranted assumption.
When you're involved it's never your fault. Funny, that. But look at this thread as an example: I try to summarise one of Tiassa's posts for the benefit of those that considered it "impenetrable". By doing so you incorrectly think I am somehow supporting what he has written. You have a go at me. That is how this latest exchange has gone.
And he appears to be renting space in your head free of charge, given that you can't even contemplate anyone else having anything to do with him, including, it seems, trying to summarise his post, without judging that person somehow guilty by association. That is on you.
Aw, diddums needs a hug.
It's all about you, isn't it. James R has been hurt by Tiassa. Everyone must therefore have a bad view of Tiassa! Anyone who doesn't is also bad!
There's nothing to fool you with, James R. You're paranoid. You constantly assume bad faith. Remove that false assumption lest that is all you will interpret things as.
It is unimportant, James R. We've been through this before. Just because you think it is important, and even if you manage to convince others of that, doesn't make it important for everyone. If you want to do anything about it, do it. Stop crying foul, stop seeing bad faith where there is none, and enough with playing the victim. "Oh, I've been slighted by that evil Tiassa! Everyone must know! Everyone must feel so sorry for me! Boo hoo! Everyone must treat Tiassa as I want them to!"
I believe I told you to. Twice. You didn't. At no point did I say that I was fucking off.
You tell me, James R? Are we done? Or are you going to keep failing to see that this was all once again begun by you and your unwarranted assumptions, and subsequent aspersions.
??? WTF?
Stop lying! There was no sticking of my nose into anything, other than clarifying his post to those that thought he was "impenetrable". Reread what I wrote, FFS. So stop with the harassment!
I'll stop when you stop harassing me, lying, making false inferences, and making unwarranted assumptions. If you can do that...?
You have issues with him, James R. That much you've made abundantly clear at every opportunity. As has he about you. I honestly couldn't care less (take note, American's, as to the correct phrasing!), and I'm sorry you're not the centre of my world that I have any sympathy for you. I. Couldn't. Care. Less.
I will treat Tiassa's post as I find them, and ignore, as I do in most people's posts, stuff that I don't care about.
But, guess what - that's not what has happened here: I simply summarised one of his posts for people, and you intervened, and had a go at me for it.
This is all on you. And nothing you can say will change that fact.
Now, shall we please return to the thread topic? Or do you want to continue trying to dig yourself out of the hole you've put yourself in?
Nope. They weren't normal, no more so than any of my other friends. And the alcoholics I met _definitely_ had a disease. A disease that, in two cases, killed them.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I feel a little guilty for this one because I was too lazy to go back and read strings relating to this. So, my apologies. I have trouble with Tiassa's posts, reading them.
I tend to skim because I find them tedious on the whole
I tend to skim because I find them tedious on the whole
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Me too unfortunately. My good friend could be going that way
Keep in mind that he's been having some trouble lately. He is perceived to be playing second fiddle to Musk and there is nothing he hates more. His AG pick turned out to be a pedophile and he is hoping no one talks about that much. And now he has very public problems with Hegseth.
Much of what he's doing is simply to distract people from the pedophilia thing or the second-fiddle thing. If they are talking about him and not Musk or Gaetz he is happy, and has succeeded.
I know several. One does tandems for a skydiving place in Belgium. Another is an engineer for a solar company. A third is a scientist. A fourth likes to haul around her own smoker to skydiving events so she can cook for people. None are what I would call "normal."
And in most cases I didn't know they were trans until they told me, or outed themselves intentionally. Which took a while; most trans people won't out themselves unless there's a good reason to do so AND they think the person they are talking to isn't a bigot. And it can sometimes be hard for them to determine the lattter.
Nothing for you to particularly apologise for. Noone is obliged to read posts, for whatever reason they have. Similarly, noone should be subjected to harassment just because they don't hate Tiassa or one of his posts, and provided a summary of one.