Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Dec 5, 2023.
Even if life is crap one has to try and extract something positive to keep moving.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Nonsense. You are simply being argumentative now.
The small issue is James beef with Tiassa; the larger issue is, generally, beefs with Tiassa.
You now know this. Stop wasting screen space and move on.
You must have been a delight as a child.
"Mama! You brought me here to this restaurant selfishly, because of your craving for food!" - said Little Sarkie, between mouthfuls of ice cream and sprinkles.
That is textbook hypocrisy.
Mama doesnt require your absolution. Or your judgement on her motives. Yet she is benevolent enough to give you space to voice them - even while stuffing your face.
You're a grownup now; such hypocrisy should be beneath you.
Stop being pathetic, DaveC426913. Don't tell me what I know or don't. You don't agree with me, that's fine, but trying to tell me what I do or don't know is childish. Also don't blame me for you being unable to adequately express your view. If all you have is your pathetic little efforts at retort, then there's really only one person wasting screen space here. The beefs people have with Tiassa is still only part of the wider issue, which includes similar accusations by other moderators to other people. I get that you may be myopic due to not having been on the receiving end of such, but it is a wider issue than just Tiassa. I'm sorry you can't, or won't, see that.
What is it that you don't get, exactly? Or are you still struggling to write what you actually mean?
Let's break this analogy down: child knows mother is obese and has eating disorder. She takes a child to a restaurant so that she can gorge on all the things she craves. Child is quite at liberty to criticise the mother for that action. No hypocrisy in that, no matter what the child then eats, because the criticism is of the reasoning that brought them to the restaurant, the intent behind it, not what they then do at the restaurant. Sure, she could have gone by herself, but not doing so still doesn't excuse the reasoning.
Or let's take another analogy to hopefully make it much clearer to you: person A murders their parent to benefit from the will (obviously hoping to not get caught). Person B also benefits from the same will. Is person B allowed to criticise the action of person A, even thought they have similarly benefitted from that action? According to you it seems not.
As explained, there is no hypocrisy, so your complaint and criticism is moot. And I'd have thought that you're grown up enough for stupidity to be beneath you. What a fine pair we make, eh!
Now that I've clarified for you what I meant by "larger issue", you do know. So yes, I am quite able to tell you what you know. And wasting more time arguing it is just jaw-flapping at the expense of readers.
You're still being hypocritical about availing yourself of a relatively benevolent administration. Disagree all you want, you haven't refuted that, and I don't care to waste any more time on it. It's not helping this thread and I am moving on to the more important aspects. You do you.
Pro-tip: 'stupid' is a vacuous insult, no better than sticking one's tongue out and saying nyaaah! It does not look good on you.
What kind of "pro" would that apply to or be coming from. Just curious. Professional debater, writer, communicator?
I guess a "pro tip" (just trying to learn here) would be for one member (not a moderator) to refrain from telling another member to "just move on and stop wasting screen space". Is this an audition for an open moderator position?
It could work I guess. Good luck.
What you have shown is that you dont truly know, let alone understand, what the larger issue is, and seem to want to double down on the "it's Tiassa!" issue. However, now that I've made you aware of the even larger issue, that shows yours not to be the larger issue, you're really just showing yourself to be irrelevant to that larger issue, and, if anything, just a mouthpiece for its continuation. Which is a shame.
What you know to be the issue is a mere subset. And since I've told you that, and explained it to you, your protestations are humourously pointless and just defensive waffle.
As for "availing myself of a relatively benevolent administration", the entire site has. I don't need to refute that because it's true. But it doesn't excuse the intent behind actions. And it is notable that you have not refuted that. Ironic, no?
Your subsequent bluster to avoid even discussing the issue speaks volumes, though. And if anything that speaks to the current state of this website.
If you honestly think that then, unfortunately, that speaks volumes as to the poor state of this website. But, hey, you do you.
When one has been shown to be stupid, as you were, it is prudent to take note, lest you continue to come across as stupid. If you're okay with that look, you do you.
But, hey, I guess James R is looking for "yes" men as moderators to perpetuate the mess here, so hopefully you've put your name forward?
FFS, Seattle. Go to post #57 of this thread. There you will find a link to a thread in which you were a participant, but which you have obviously, like Sarkus, forgotten (apart from your own role in it, perhaps). Read the first few posts of that thread.
Come on, this isn't difficult. There's no mystery. You're a smart guy. Try.
I explained why I made this thread in post #1 of this thread, in detail. FFS, go and read it.
Perhaps, unlike Sarkus, you might like to venture an opinion on whether the substance of Tiassa's allegations against me is true or false. So, how about it? Am I a white supremacist, Seattle? Am I racist? Am I a sex crimes advocate?
Are you unsure? Is there no way you can tell? Apparently, Sarkus can't decide. Are you also hopelessly lost?
Also, does it matter to you whether those accusations against me are true or false? Are you happy, like Sarkus apparently is, to be a member of an internet forum if it's run by a racist, white supremacist sex crimes advocate?
This thread isn't about my faults - unless those faults happen to be that I'm racist, a white supremacist and/or a sex crimes advocate. If I'm any of those things, then clearly I'm also a flaming hypocrite, like Sarkus claims I am. Maybe, it also follows that it was completely immoral of me to remove Tiassa as a moderator of this forum, in that case.
What do you think?
You're very concerned about rudeness and arrogance, you say, along with rigidity of thought. So, who else around here deserves your reprobation for their arrogance, rudeness and rigidity of thought, Seattle? Can't think of anybody in particular?
You think? Poor Tiassa, right?
It's nice to see that you're suddenly concerned about poo being flung at other people, though, even if you're a bit selective about who you're concerned for.
This thread isn't about any of that. Your issues with me are your issues with me. I previously suggested that you ought to start a separate thread about those, if you insist on dredging up old grudges and making a public spectacle of yourself again. This isn't the place for that.
Do you know what happens when you drop sensible moderation of content on a discussion site? Twitter (X) is what happens. The trolls take over.
Please make your allegations elsewhere, and at least try to support them with appropriate evidence.
I can tell that you're itching to re-run an old matter. If you want to re-prosecute your case, you can do that. It didn't go well for you last time, but who knows? Maybe repeating the same thing again will lead to a different outcome? What are the chances? Take it to a different thread.
Don't be silly. I'm way ahead of you. And you continue to demonstrate that you can't catch up.
Not at all. I completely understand your intellectual interest.
Of course you aren't. You're merely a disinterested, interested observer. Entirely objective in every way. Right?
It's ironic that you fail at all four things you accuse me of, in the very same post in which you make the accusation. But you don't see that, do you?
Ah, but now you do.
That's a bizarre reading. What do you think this thread is about? Did you read post #1? Are you aware that Tiassa is no longer a moderator?
Tell me why you think they were serious, Sarkus. This is a change of tune for you.
Tell me why you think I was hurt by them, Sarkus.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But you give a fuck, don't you? If you didn't, you wouldn't be here, endlessly repeating yourself on the topic, never knowing when to stop.
You don't speak for "most". And you don't know. You're just assuming.
Let's consider a hypothetical, shall we? Let us assume that you have a friend, A. Let us assume that another person you know, B, makes a hurtful, false allegation against your friend, A. How do you react? And, more importantly, how do you think the average person in your position should react, in these circumstances?
Now, this is unfair, of course. Who said I am your friend? Clearly, I'm not your friend. (Do you have friends, Sarkus?) So, let's take that out of the scenario. You have an acquaintance, A, and another person you know, B, makes a hurtful allegation against A. How do you react? And, more importantly, how should the average person in your position react, in these circumstances?
Do you have any thoughts on this? Of course, we know how you react, because we've seen it. What remains a mystery is how you think the average person in the same position should react. And I'm guessing that will remain a mystery, because you really don't know.
Here's how you react. The first step, obviously, is to establish the facts. Did B, in fact, even make the allegation(s) that A told you about? Because, you know, it's vitally important to find out first whether A is telling the truth about the fact of the allegations.
If you can ever manage to establish that the allegations were actually made, to your own satisfaction, then the next question is whether A is overreacting to the allegations. Because it's important that to you that everybody who is accused of something doesn't lose their shit over it. They shouldn't get emotional about it, for instance.
Equally as important as making sure that A doesn't become irrational about the allegations is making sure that A isn't being hypocritical about the accusations. If A has ever accused anybody else of something, then A really deserves what he gets. It would be hugely hypocritical for A to complain about false accusations if he has ever made accusations himself. So, it's very important to investigate that.
Somewhere a long way down the line, it might become relevant to consider the question of whether B's allegations about A are true or false, but that should only happen after one has established that A's personal character is beyond reproach, and after one has established that A is a purely rational being who isn't having an unsuitable emotional reaction to being accused.
One should not examine the character or history of person B, who made the allegations, at least not until one has dealt with the questionable personal characteristics of person A, the target of the allegations.
If one ever gets around to considering whether B's allegations are true or false, then if they turn out to be false everybody should just move on with their lives and forget it ever happened; A most of all. Because A shouldn't get upset over things are simply aren't true. That would be an inappropriate, emotional reaction, in the circumstances. Perhaps B should not be trusted so much in the future, but that's just something to bear in mind.
If, on the other hand, the allegations are true, then B was totally justified in raising them in the first place, and we can just add the true allegations to the long list of A's other character flaws and move on with our own lives.
Under no circumstances and at no stage in the process of investigation and rational judgment should one ever pat A on the head and say "Aw, diddums. Poor you. The nasty man made false accusations against you. I feel for you." Because A is a big boy who should look after himself. He doesn't need any sympathy, and certainly it's never your place to give any sympathy. After all, it's not your spat. This is between A and B. It should never have been public in the first place. Why are they even bothering you about it? It's irrational and inappropriate. But it's mostly A's fault for letting himself get all worked up over it.
This is how it goes, isn't it Sarkus? This is how you think it should go.
Do you think you might be missing something? Or does this seem fair enough to you? It's the reasonable thing to do, in the circumstances, is it not?
It would not do at all to fall for it, would it, Sarkus?
A whining about B's nasty allegations. You wouldn't want to fall for that act from A, would you? Let yourself be sucked into some irrelevant drama between A and B? No, you'd stay right out of it. You wouldn't try to insert yourself into it and make it all about A's character flaws. Right?
You especially wouldn't do that if you had some bias towards A from the start, because of some ancient spat you had with A previously? Right? You wouldn't because you're supremely rational. You don't need anybody to say "poor diddums" to you. You're a big boy, too. You don't get hurt. Nobody should.
Indeed. My spat with Tiassa, as you put it, is all very hypothetical, really, isn't it? Just like the A vs B spat I just described. Such things tell us nothing useful about "real-world problems".
Well done, Sarkus. What an expert in human relations you are. You have this all sorted.
It is indeed. You're not entirely alone, but are you aware you're an outlier, or not?
I don't think anyone on here is any of those things that you feel you have been called.
It's a bit much for you to say that I'm making a spectacle of myself when this whole thread is about you making a spectacle of yourself in the extreme.
I don't really care about your brush off about what I can do and how it "didn't go well for me last time". If anything on this site goes well or not well it's just because of your actions so that's a pretty hollow statement.
Almost no one reads this site so why keep this thread open for so long? PM Tiassa and say whatever you want to. No one else cares. Yes, Tiassa is hard to deal with and can barely communicate, so what? It is what it is.
What are you expecting from this thread. Do you want everyone to say "Tiassa is more at fault than you"? Again, who cares? You are both hard to deal with, he more so but you are more frequently in everyone's face.
I assume you aren't any of those things that you say Tiassa called you. So what? Is your ego that fragile? You aren't that sensitive to when those things are charged against anyone else. You know that no one here is any of those things.
The most you could say about this site is that there are a few "crazies" that pop up from time to time. No one is a "bad" person here. Everyone is a nuanced individual. That's the reality.
It isn't "moderating" to be rude in every reply. It's just a "privilege" that you have that no one else has. You can't be accused of "trolling" and everyone else can.
Tiassa isn't going to apologize to you. You know that. We all know that. We know that you and Sarkus are going to continue sniping each other tit for tat until the end of time.
You don't need to include "FFS" when you address me by the way. Have some emotional control and manners "FFS". Grow up.
What is the point of this thread and what are you even hoping to accomplish with this site? Whatever it is, you aren't doing very well, wouldn't you agree?
If I left and Sarkus left, what would there be to do on here? You and Dave could congratulate each other in every thread but there wouldn't be many threads and the site would finally just die, which seems to be your goal.
Maybe everyone should leave and Tiassa could have his blog back, making long-winded, incoherent discourse to his imaginary audience?
Or maybe everyone could just post and quit being so sensitive. This site isn't going to turn into a hate filled site without your "moderation". There are plenty of sites with lite moderation that are quite civil.
I'm not the boogeyman here. I'm actually a nice guy with a good sense of humor and I am educated, intelligent and reasonable. I'm sure you'll have some sarcastic comment but maybe taking a different tack would bring more change?
Wegs has a sense of humor, I think exchemist, Dave, even Write4u do as well, billvonn too. Actually, what what has been shown so far, you are the only one that hasn't shown a sense of humor in any post that I can recall. Yet, I'm pretty sure (not positive) that in person you probably are all those things that I used in describing myself and others.
Just don't try so hard to be a jerk and others will probably do the same, Tiassa excepted of course. There is no hope there as far as I can tell.
Thank you for your reply. While you were typing away, I was too, so I'm guessing you didn't read post #209 before you posted your latest. Maybe you should read that. See what you think. I don't think you're in quite the same position as Sarkus. In your case, you're probably just aiming for a particular effect on your readers. Maybe you should think a bit beyond what satisfies your immediate needs, and consider the big picture here. Try to remember that there's a human on the other end of your internet connection.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Did you read post #1, like I suggested, or not?
Did you understand when I told you I'd be happy to discuss your issues in a different thread, or not?
You're not done with it, yet. Neither is Sarkus.
You'd complain if I closed it. You'd say I was self-serving, again.
There's no winning with you guys, is there? You're always quick to find fault in others.
Like I said to Sarkus, you don't speak for everybody. You speak for you. Also, here you are, caring.
Regarding Tiassa, I have said all I need to say. He hasn't said what he needs to say.
Making scurrilous false accusations goes a bit beyond being hard to communicate with.
See post #1. So far, things have gone more or less as I predicted they would, in that post.
What would be the right thing for you to say about that, under the circumstances? Have you given it any thought at all?
You decided to get in my face in this thread. Nobody asked you to post here, on this topic.
If you don't want to talk about this, there are plenty of other threads. You could even start one of your own. There's an idea!
Does it not matter to you whether false accusations are made by one member here against another? Or does it only matter to you, perhaps, when you are on the receiving end?
Is keeping my ego in check your number one concern, in the context of this thread? That's an interesting set of priorities you have there.
Are you aware that we have a published policy against telling deliberate lies? Are you aware that we have a published policy concerning personal attacks made by one member against another?
To what extent are you aware of how and when these policies are enforced by moderator action?
Does it occur to you that Tiassa's false accusations against me fell into a special category when he was a moderator of this forum? Are you at all aware of the problem they raised? Hint: it's about conflict of interest, a topic I would assume you're moderately familiar with, following some previous discussions we had on a different topic.
I do not know that. However, there have been instances in the past where people who are those things have been permanently banned by me.
Certainly, my aim for sciforums is to have a site that has zero tolerance for sex crime advocacy and a very low threshold for white supremacism and other forms of racism. I can explain why not zero tolerance for the latter two and have in fact done so in the past. I am not, myself, racist or a white supremacist; that is quite obvious from my posting history and should go without saying.
We could quibble over what makes a "bad person", but I don't think that's necessary, at this time.
I'm not rude in every reply. You tend to get what you give, with me, although I am tolerant of even quite extraordinary levels of rudeness. That's a good thing. A moderator needs to have quite a thick skin, because we get all kinds here.
I can be, and I have been.
It's never too late.
You're probably right. Tiassa doesn't seem to understand that he has done something wrong, yet. Maybe he'll come around; maybe not. I won't hold my breath.
I'm confident I will tire of it long before Sarkus does. He has an intellectual interest, you see.
Just make sure you get yourself up to speed before you make inanely stupid statements like that, in future. Then I won't have to.
See post #1.
It's not entirely up to me as to what is accomplished with this site. I do not own it. Clearly, it accomplishes the owners' aims, for the time being. If it did not, we wouldn't be having this discussion here.
There haven't been any major changes to this site for a number of years, in terms of aims, policies or procedures. It would be reasonable for you to assume that if I wanted to drive some particular radical change I would do what I could to do that, while keeping the membership informed.
If you have suggestions for what you'd like to see, we have a forum for that. It's called Open Government. You could start a thread.
I think I'm doing okay. Thanks for asking.
Do you think the two of you are single-handedly keeping the site alive? Could you possibly be overestimating how important your contributions are?
What's your goal? For now, apparently it is not for the site to die, because if you wanted that you could have deprived us all of your important contributions long ago.
Are you fighting the good fight, Seattle, keeping sciforums alive almost single-handedly while I try to kill it off? How noble of you.
Nobody has stopped his blogging.
Who knows? Maybe you'll get to find out.
Actions speak louder than words, Seattle. I look forward to seeing more of your nice intelligent and reasonable contributions, full of humor, in future posts. I'm all for it, believe me.
It's okay. Different people have different senses of humor. Mine tends to be dry and self-deprecating. Maybe not your cup of tea. Maybe there's some more stuff you missed, too.
I'm glad you think that some other people here have value to you, though. That's a very different view than the one Sarkus apparently holds towards the people here.
What was it you said? "Everyone is a nuanced individual. That's the reality."
It's too often forgotten on the interwebs.
I never try to be an ahole, I assure you.
OK, I take you at your word. I'll also quit posting and reading this particular thread. That seems to be your message in part but if no one is reading and posting in this thread then why have the thread? Anyway...
Yes, I'm certainly not important nor keeping the site alive and many people here contribute. I wouldn't think I would need to say that but maybe I need to be a little more literal in my statements around you so they aren't misinterpreted. I'll try in that regard.
If I start any other threads though, it won't be on any of these subjects. It will probably be in the areas I'm more interest in which are the areas that fewer people seem to be interested in, but that's OK too, maybe the readership will broaden over time.
I also think it's important for everyone (including you and I) to remember that everyone tends to give what they receive. So you may feel that I'm being rude and you are just giving it back and I'm probably giving it back because I feel that you have just been giving it to me. That's how the whole Hatfield and McCoys feud go started.
I don't have any grandiose visions of performing for "my" audience as you've suggested. That borders on "silly" don't you think? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyway, I take you at your word that you aren't trying to be unpleasant and maybe I've missed some implied humor somewhere along the way as well.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If that's what you honestly believe.
In the specific case at hand, yes, that is correct.
I do, James R. But I'm guessing that you don't see that if I accuse you of X and "fail at" X, then that's a good thing for me. And you think you're way ahead. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Slowly you catch up. Slowly.
Note that I said you "chose" not to. Past tense. I am aware that you have now removed his moderator status - hence this thread - but you chose (past tense) not to when the accusations and refusal at support / apology were made, you chose (past tense) not to when you made a song and dance about it and posted not one but two separate threads about it. Catching up yet?
No it's not a change of tune. Maybe you're confusing considering something being a serious issue, and caring about it? As to why they are serious: twofold - one, it is calling into question someone's character, and secondly it is a moderator doing it.
Because they're bring in to question your character, James R.
As said (do keep up!), from an intellectual point of view I find the case interesting. Otherwise, no, not really.
And you're assuming they give a shit. Yet how many people weighed in to tell you two to get a room mid-spat? Exchemist likened it to the a scene in Airplane. Origin suggested you effectively get a room (and contain it to that thread). Foghorn referred to it as old hat and sarcastically as a potboiler. Billvon agreed that "this is what mods do when post numbers are low". Even DaveC426913 said that if you two didn't want comments from the peanut gallery you wouldn't be airing it in public.
Yeah, sounds like everyone could really have given a shit about your spat. And do keep up: I'm not referring to the issues per se, but to the spat.
False analogy. Neither of you are friends. I don't know either of you well enough for this analogy to be relevant.
Can't stop digging, can you. Yet you complain when others do it. Still wondering what the larger issue is here?
It depends on who those acquaintances are, and the relative powers they yield. If an employee insults their CEO, I couldn't give a shit. Most people wouldn't. The CEO can resolve the issue themself. If the person doing the insulting weilds all the power, however, then it becomes an issue I'd more likely care about. If I am confident that the person insulted has the wherewithall and capability to deal with it then, similarly, I'd not give a shit and just let them resolve it between themselves. And preferably behind closed doors.
Oh, look, that's how most people seemed to have seen it.
How am I doing so far, James R?
Maybe in such a scenario I should go up to the CEO and put my arm around him and go "Aw, diddums, did nasty little employee say nasty little things about you? There, there. It'll be okay." What do you think? Would that be how you think the average person should react.
So, yeah. Noone really gave a shit. Noone.
Caught up yet?
Not initially. Remember, my first reaction was to roll my eyes and not give a shit.
What you're actually describing is when I care about the case from an intellectual point of view. Don't forget that. Don't conflate the before/after.
Remember, James R, you've accepted that you are but a mere acquaintance. Why should I believe that you have been accused? Do you believe everything an acquaintance tells you? I could also not initially find the accusations on my cursory read through of Tiassa's posts. So, from an intellectual point of view this would be the first thing to do. After all, if there are no actual accusations by Tiassa, the whole matter is moot. And I'm still waiting for where the 3rd accusation was made. Care to provide?
No, the next step would be to gather the evidence upon which those accusations are made. If there is no evidence then those accusations would be unfounded. End of story with regard the case. You can then seek redress however you deem appropriate. And no, my view of your character, as poor as I find it to be, would not have a bearing on this matter.
If there is evidence, is it sufficient to warrant the accusations made? Should the accusations have been qualified in some manner, or is it insufficient for the accusations? If there is evidence, and if it is sufficient, then that opens up a whole new line, I guess.
This is a different matter to the intellectual matter of the case at hand.
We can investigate why you lost your shit over it, but that's really for you to answer, as each to their own. Did you need to do it in public, and seek validation as you did? No. Should you have done? We can all take a view on that.
No, as pointed out above, the question of whether the allegations are true or not is the second thing, after accepting that there have been allegations. Do keep up.
When one has established that accusations have been made, and that there is no evidence to support them, then we could examine the motive of the accuser, sure. But to consider motives and character rather than evidence is to commit an ad hominem. And we wouldn't want that, would we.
No one is saying you shouldn't have gotten upset, James R. False accusations make people upset, especially regarding matters such as racism, and bigotry. It is the manner of how one behaves when upset, James R. People with power seem to think they can cry louder and that everyone should come and comfort them. And then they criticise people that they falsely accuse for getting too emotional. Oh, look, we're speaking to your hypocrisy. See, this one of the areas that that can come in to play.
And if you're in any doubt, this above was you misrepresenting someone's position again, just in case you were looking for an example.
Well, it still speaks to the wider issue at play here. But maybe you're not yet caught up to what that might be? Care to hazard a guess?
In a purely intellectual investigation, no, there is no need for it. The facts speak for themselves, regardless of people's emotional response to them.
Now, if you're still referring to what people might do when not specifically looking at things from an intellectual point of view, then that's up to them, taking into account whether they give a shit about the people involved, etc.
It's mostly A's fault that this issue has not been dealt with quickly, efficiently, and in private. A chose not to do that. A chose instead to create multiple threads about it.
I tried, James R. Heck, we all tried not to be sucked in. But you just pulled everyone into it. You made sure of that. Have you not considered what would have happened if you removed Tiassa as moderator 6 months ago, and did it behind closed doors, and didn't highlight your spat with him across multiple threads you set up for the purpose?
I have no bias against you James R. If you wish to dismiss all the criticism against you as being because of that, that would be an ad hominem on your part. You wouldn't want to do that, would you?
Who said they can't tell us anything useful? Of course they can. But to examine that you would have to use it as a case-study and look at it somewhat more objectively than you appear capable of here.
In finding an examination of it to be interesting from an intellectual point of view? I'd be surprised if I wasn't.
So what, exactly, is your issue with someone not giving a shit enough about your spat to pat you on the head and go "aww, diddums, did nasty hate-filled little man say nasty hate-filled little things about you?" etc? You've gone on at length to try to show me that this is somehow not the way it should be, so I'm wondering what the actual issue you have with it is? Presumably you are confident enough to know whether those accusations are true or not? You are in the only position of power to deal with what you consider such egregiously false accusations. So, other than perhaps some insecurity for which you seek constant validation, what is the real issue you have with me not giving a shit (at least before the intellectual interest kicked in)?
Maybe when you catch up you can tell me.
Thanks for your reply. It is exactly as I expected it would be, and I think it really says everything that needs to be said by you. I'm confident that, by this point in the discussion, readers will have a good handle on where you're coming from. You have communicated very clearly.
I found the following parts to be the highlights. Most informative, and confirmatory.
This all speaks eloquently for your stance on matters of this kind, Sarkus. It also fully confirms what I wrote in my last post to you, apart from some details about your order of priorities in your intellectual investigation process.
In your opinion, do you think you've adequately covered all the relevant and important issues now? Or do you still have things to add?
Is it at all possible that you might have missed something? Perhaps something important? Or don't you think so?
I don't think that's something I can explain to you. Either you get it, or you don't. And you very clearly don't.
So there is some niggling sense there that, just maybe, you've missing something? Or not?
Oh yes, I'm confident I know that. As for you, you still just haven't quite got enough information to make any judgment about the legitimacy of the accusations at all. Right?
Do you think Tiassa's false accusations themselves have now been adequately dealt with? If not, how would you advise that I proceed, being in the position of power I'm in?
I have no issues with you not giving a shit. You very likely can't help yourself.
Let me know when you're done here, and I'll close the thread, unless anybody else wants to chime in.
And once again you behave dishonestly, evading questions, and opting to put your head in the sand. But that's to be expected by now. The readership you perform to and seek constant validation from are used to it from you.
And it's clear that not only do you not get it, James R, but that you don't even want to get it. But then maybe you're just not capable of doing so. We could even find out if only your dishonesty didn't keep getting in the way.
So, sure, don't keep the thread open on my account. I can have more productive conversations with brick walls.
Thanks, Sarkus. It's always a pleasure talking with you.
This thread is now closed.
Separate names with a comma.