Why are muslims have in a science forum ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Fellow traveler:

Please clarify the title of your thread. What did you mean to say? Somehow I don't think

"Why are muslims have in a science forum ?"

was what you meant.


What are you asking? It is hard to respond when one does not know what one is responding to!
 
Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
I thank SAMs issue is that she ant alowed to espress her views

What?
She expresses them all over the forums.

Espressin censored versons of her views aparently dont scratch her itch.!!!

She has a one track mind. Every thread she posts is anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-atheist, anti-West, anti-something or other.

All legal views to have... an even tho my 1 track mind mos likely disagrees wit many of her views... her views dont up-set me in the least... its restricton on speech makes me un-easy.!!!
 
Espressin censored versons of her views aparently dont scratch her itch.!!!

Clueluss, do you have any evidence that SAM's posts have been censored? She seems to be able to carry on quite well as to her views regarding Israel, etc., so long as she stays within the same forum rules we all have to abide by.

I think you are doing her a disservice by implying that she needs any "help" expressing her position, she is quite competent and able to hold her own... :shrug:
 
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Espressin censored versons of her views aparently dont scratch her itch.!!!

Clueluss, do you have any evidence that SAM's posts have been censored?

I didnt say her posts have been censored... she has to censor herself/postin style or be censored forever by bein permentaly baned.!!!

Ive never seen SAM post anythang that needed censorin... have you???

She seems to be able to carry on quite well as to her views regarding Israel, etc., so long as she stays within the same forum rules we all have to abide by.

Ther in lies the rub... those in charge of applyin the rules equaly to everone... an i thank shes been unnecesarly censored/baned... but mayb you dont... mayb im mor liberal in the speech i thank shud be allowable :shrug:

I think you are doing her a disservice by implying that she needs any "help" expressing her position...

Sinse that ant what i implyed... you'r remark is irrelevent :shrug:
 
I don't think fellow traveller should have been banned. He's just saying what James is always saying [Sam is a bigoted pro-Muslim, anti American, antisemitic bigotic one sided [liberal] racist who should be censored/banned], he's just more politically incorrect.

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Espressin censored versons of her views aparently dont scratch her itch.!!!



I didnt say her posts have been censored... she has to censor herself/postin style or be censored forever by bein permentaly baned.!!!

Ive never seen SAM post anythang that needed censorin... have you???



Ther in lies the rub... those in charge of applyin the rules equaly to everone... an i thank shes been unnecesarly censored/baned... but mayb you dont... mayb im mor liberal in the speech i thank shud be allowable :


Sinse that ant what i implyed... you'r remark is irrelevent :shrug:

The rules don't apply to me, I have special hidden rules which the admin selectively applies only to me. :D

Everyone has special rules and expectations of Muslims, even defending ourselves against WMDs is considered a death threat. ;)

And as James has clearly said, sympathising with the victims of American invasions and occupations is bigotry.
 
Last edited:
Why are muslims have in a science forum ?
I would have thought it was obvious: because I have an egg sandwich and elephants are large.

A more pertinent question would be "Why is someone incapable of forming a coherent sentence in his native language allowed to post anywhere?"
 

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Espressin censored versons of her views aparently dont scratch her itch.!!! ”

Origionaly posted by James R
She expresses them on many other forums, too.

It ant got nuthin to do wit SAM per-say... i speek up for freer speech no mater who it concerns.!!!

I even have a couple of critics of my own... an i also encourge them to speek ther mind about me.!!!


“ Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
I didnt say her posts have been censored... she has to censor herself/postin style or be censored forever by bein permentaly baned.!!! ”

So do racists. So do those who wish to flame other members. So do pseudoscientific trolls.

Its you'r groop... you'r rules... you deside whos a racist or a troll or when flamin is determined to flamin... ect... ect... but jus in case member opinions ever have a influence... i push for/cast my voat toward freerer speech... an its nuthin personal... i know this is a moderated groop shootin for certan standards an i thank thats fine... but no mater how tight or loose the "rules" haapen to be at any particular time... im alwayis gonna push for freerer speech.!!!

An like Martha Stewert mite say... "thats a good thang" (in my opinion).!!!

Origionaly posted by fellowtraveler
Why are muslims have in a science forum ?

A more pertinent question would be "Why is someone incapable of forming a coherent sentence in his native language allowed to post anywhere?"

Good pont.!!!
 
Promoting religious agendas that always and only find fault with the USA and our allies. This is exactly what S.A.M. does all day every day. If you find that funny, screw you. I am going to have my say here. This person is a dedicated enemy of the USA. If that is some sort of joke BAN ME.
Is this forum dedicated to the destruction of the USA ? If so say so and people such as me will avoid this forum. ...fellowtraveler

Then consider me screwed
ExcitedSmile.gif
:xctd:

Me too :xctd:

just kidding
 
SAM:

And as James has clearly said, sympathising with the victims of American invasions and occupations is bigotry.

I never said this.

Lying about what I've said is below the belt and is unacceptable.

You will now apologise. You have 24 hours.
 
SAM:



I never said this.

Lying about what I've said is below the belt and is unacceptable.

You will now apologise. You have 24 hours.

Nope I stand by my assessment and your history of incomprehension.

Here are the relevant posts:

SAM quoting a link by a left wing American said:
How many Americans in their hearts are on the side of the humble families of Pakistani citizens slaughtered in Predator drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks, and how many are on the side of the angelic, charming, Harvard Law School educated first black president of the United States, who, a few days after his inauguration, ordered these drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks in the name of 9/11? (Something he had said he would do if he were elected.)

James said:
Now, consider for a minute how SAM phrased her opening post. We have "humble families", "Pakistani citizens", "slaughtered", contrasted deliberately with a clearly intended irony of the "angelic, charming" President. A loaded assessment before we even start, in the guise of an innocent question or opener for a debate.

SAM also has a racial dig at Obama. How is the fact that he is black relevant here? Perhaps SAM thinks Obama should show solidarity with those "humble families" in Pakistan because he is black. Also, there's an implied slur on the fact that Obama was educated at Harvard. Probably SAM is having a go at what she perceives as privilege, and implying that Obama's privileged education makes him disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people such as "humble" Pakistanis.

Also consider that SAM smears Americans in general, asking what is in their hearts. The implication is that any American who supports Obama is anti-Pakistani and in favour of the killing of innocent civilians. SAM deliberately wants to paint Americans in general, and Obama in particular, as immoral and uncaring.

This is not an opening post that invites intelligent discussion. It is an opening post that invites people to hate the evil Americans and their evil President, since they all set out to kill the humble and innocent citizens of Pakistan, for reasons we can only imagine but which can in no way be justified.

Now, I am in no way saying that a discussion of drone missile attacks in Pakistan is invalid. I have issues not with the topic, but with the hateful way in which it is presented. This OP invites only an extreme response either way. Either you are on the side of the Good and the Right (which means you agree with SAM's assessment that the United States and Obama are evildoers through and through) or you are with the terrorists (i.e. America and its foreign policy, headed by the evil and despised Obama).

SAM said:
SAM does no such thing. SAM posts an article written by an American, indenting the selected parts and then posts her questions at the end of the indent

With The Drone Bombing Victims?
Or With Who Ordered The Strikes?

By Jay Janson

19 July, 2009
Countercurrents.org

How many Americans in their hearts are on the side of the humble families of Pakistani citizens slaughtered in Predator drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks, and how many are on the side of the angelic, charming, Harvard Law School educated first black president of the United States, who, a few days after his inauguration, ordered these drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks in the name of 9/11? (Something he had said he would do if he were elected.)


The link is given at the end of the indent.

Why is this being presented as my words?

My words are merely:


Whats your choice? What should Americans do? What should be the role of the masses in military adventurism? Answer the poll

James said:
Because you chose these words.

Whenever you quote something to make a point or raise an issue, you are making a selection from a multitude of available materials and sources. Your choices, SAM, invariably show the kinds of biases I just pointed out. There are plenty of unbiased sources out there, but you never use them. Or, if you do, you go quote-mining for parts of them that put the matter into the hateful light you always wish to emphasise.

SAM said:
Also I would be curious to know, now that you know its written by a leftist American opinion website, do you still have the same opinion about it?

James said:
Of course.

I bolded the part which led to my assessment.

Everyone is free to read the original thread
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95939&highlight=James
 
SAM:
You will now apologise. You have 24 hours.

I find it odd and immoderate that a thread with the title this one has and an OP that goes with it did not get a warning. The implication is that Muslims have no business being here. It was sloppily done, and the OP and title do not fit together logically, but the implication is clear. You answered his questions, in an earlier post in this thread, as if they had no context.

At no point did you counter the thread's implication that Muslims should not be here. It goes beyond this to suggesting that she, personally, should not be here. This seems to be a thread attacking a person (and a group). Isn't that against the rules?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the philosophy here: its perfectly legitimate to make anti-theist and anti-Christian, anti-Muslim statements here, because [and you will appreciate this more than most] its in keeping with the scientific basis of this forum

A recent quote:

Fraggke Rocker said:
Everyone here knows that you have been a member of this website long enough to know that it is a place of science, or at least tries to be. They also know that you know that, since religion is anti-science, we are all free to insult it whenever we want, just as we can insult crackpottery. We're not allowed to insult people because of their ethnicity or gender, but we're free to call religion bullshit and to be skeptical of people who believe bullshit yet for some reason want to be members of a science website.

So suggesting that theists need psychiatric treatment, Muslims lie or do not belong in a science forum and such are what science is based on. :D

Its disingenuous to suggest otherwise

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2443838&postcount=66
 
Yah....not that I go along with what FR expresses there, but it still tries to separate the individual from their beliefs. Here we have a thread saying that your presence here means that the forum is an enemy of the USA and that either you go or he goes. IOW you should leave.

I thought threads attacking a member were no nos, but maybe I got that wrong.
 
It all depends on where you fall in the spectrum. I don't qualify because I'm on the wrong side of the crusades/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top