Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:53 pm

.


ESmiles: I will be the first to admit that I often do not perceive the level of trolling ascribed to certain users that is perceived by others. And so it was with the accusations against American Dream ... I think I've since read some descriptions that help me begin to see the outlines of what is alleged but ... that level of "subtle" trolling seems so innocuous to me as to warrant a significant evidential accounting


I respect and appreciate your contributions here, but based on my reading, your comments imply you haven't been following the specifics pertaining to AD; your response is understandable from a casual/afar observer. The reasons for AD's current suspension are myriad, though in certain respects it's an aggregate of a years-long campaign on his part. Historically, mods here have suspended him numerous times for similar actions. He's been warned repeatedly. Will defer to the mods to expound further if they deem it appropriate to do so.

Jerky's track record is documented within this forum's walls for anyone to analyze as well.

IAM: Please note I've read your earlier announcement of his being suspended. I've rarely read AD's material, as much of the material he posts is of little interest to me. Nevertheless, I haven't missed criticism tossed his way, as his critics have made that impossible. Frankly, I don't know if any of the scurrilous allegations lodged against AD are in any way valid, so if any are, (being a rule breaker), please let us know what rule(s) was/were broken.


So, per your own words, you rarely read AD's material (which is voluminous/pervasive and FAR outnumbers the post count of anyone else, save for SLAD, by a WIDE margin), BUT yet you "haven't missed criticism tossed his way", which, relative to AD's output, pales in volume. Despite your own admission that you RARELY READ AD's material -- and therefore have ZERO insight into the validity of the claims against him -- you choose to opine here and openly scrutinize these claims, and further, question the decision by the mods to suspend AD, a member who you essentially ignore?

Prior to commenting on this topic, it may be useful to perform some due diligence/analysis of the available information first. Or not: performing analysis/due diligence is certainly not a prerequisite to opining here, clearly.

I'd suggest those questioning mod decisions apply a measure of trust the mods are taking actions in good faith, based on their best judgment. If anything, they've demonstrated a willingness to revisit and revise actions taken:

Elvis » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:21 am wrote:I'm amenable to reducing the duration [of AD's suspension]* and will consider it later (hopefully together with 82_28 who seems awol).

*brackets added by me for context.


This last bit is worth repeating:

Elvis » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:21 am wrote:By the level of broad support expressed on the board and in PMs, I'm persuaded these actions reflect the will of this board as a whole, a small vocal minority notwithstanding. Objections are noted, though barrel-scraping psycho-social analyses are disappointing.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:39 pm

The New RI, struggling to locate its slippers and its reading glasses while begging for New Rules. Inspiring stuff.

Anyway, here's just a small sample of the innumerable grrrrreat new threads you can expect to be seeing from me in 2019, because there's no rules against any of 'em.


*********

UPCOMING NEW THREADS:


KKK, KGB, Jeremy Corbyn, Hitler

Myra Hindley, Elizabeth Bathory, Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Vagina Dentata, women in general

Bad Person Says Bad Thing

Dubious Person Says Dubious Thing

Third Lanark: The Ongoing Story

Is the Basque Language Inherently Fascist?

Michael Parenti is a *Piece of Work*...

Worrying Developments in the Scilly Isles

Banks Are Bad (Why have only I even noticed this??)

The World Should Be Better

Top Five Reasons Why Fight Club Was Shite, You Primitive Thickwitted Stinking Peasants

Abolish The Russian Population, By Any Means Necessary

My Struggle (By a Ukrainian Person of [palest beige, admittedly] Color)

SIDs! (It's funny! It' s like AIDs, geddit??!? Guess what the S stands for !!!)

The Hippies Were Stoopid, Unlike Me

"Love" - What A Load of Crap

OPEN LETTER TO LORD WELLS : MASTER, I AM WINNAR , ELVIS MUST GO

etc.

The only moderator of this moribund, decrepit Discussion Board will put up with all this - and more, much more, for are we not free? - forever. He has no choice. He is not a number, he is a free man, and he has this Discussion Board's continued health and wellbeing to care for.

So you will observe The Rules, Elvis. You will, you will, you will...


https://m.youtubn=N20wHvMPTGs
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:56 pm

As I recall, BS, you're a slippery one when cornered, to me, much like some have complained AD is, of being evasive. And just to be clear, I have no bad feelings towards you. I couldn't help but notice your different approach in reproaching Elfis, though we're both rather ignorant of much of what AD has posted. I guess you were saving your use of all CAPS just for for little ol me. I'll get to my point after your quoted comment below.
Belligerent Savant wrote:.


ESmiles: I will be the first to admit that I often do not perceive the level of trolling ascribed to certain users that is perceived by others. And so it was with the accusations against American Dream ... I think I've since read some descriptions that help me begin to see the outlines of what is alleged but ... that level of "subtle" trolling seems so innocuous to me as to warrant a significant evidential accounting


I respect and appreciate your contributions here, but based on my reading, your comments imply you haven't been following the specifics pertaining to AD; your response is understandable from a casual/afar observer. The reasons for AD's current suspension are myriad, though in certain respects it's an aggregate of a years-long campaign on his part. Historically, mods here have suspended him numerous times for similar actions. He's been warned repeatedly. Will defer to the mods to expound further if they deem it appropriate to do so.

Jerky's track record is documented within this forum's walls for anyone to analyze as well.

IAM: Please note I've read your earlier announcement of his being suspended. I've rarely read AD's material, as much of the material he posts is of little interest to me. Nevertheless, I haven't missed criticism tossed his way, as his critics have made that impossible. Frankly, I don't know if any of the scurrilous allegations lodged against AD are in any way valid, so if any are, (being a rule breaker), please let us know what rule(s) was/were broken.


So, per your own words, you rarely read AD's material (which is voluminous/pervasive and FAR outnumbers the post count of anyone else, save for SLAD, by a WIDE margin), BUT yet you "haven't missed criticism tossed his way", which, relative to AD's output, pales in volume. Despite your own admission that you RARELY READ AD's material -- and therefore have ZERO insight into the validity of the claims against him -- you choose to opine here and openly scrutinize these claims, and further, question the decision by the mods to suspend AD, a member who you essentially ignore?

Prior to commenting on this topic, it may be useful to perform some due diligence/analysis of the available information first. Or not: performing analysis/due diligence is certainly not a prerequisite to opining here, clearly.

I'd suggest those questioning mod decisions apply a measure of trust the mods are taking actions in good faith, based on their best judgment. If anything, they've demonstrated a willingness to revisit and revise actions taken:

Elvis » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:21 am wrote:I'm amenable to reducing the duration [of AD's suspension]* and will consider it later (hopefully together with 82_28 who seems awol).

*brackets added by me for context.


This last bit is worth repeating:

Elvis » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:21 am wrote:By the level of broad support expressed on the board and in PMs, I'm persuaded these actions reflect the will of this board as a whole, a small vocal minority notwithstanding. Objections are noted, though barrel-scraping psycho-social analyses are disappointing.


To my point:
IAM: Please note I've read your earlier announcement of his being suspended. I've rarely read AD's material, as much of the material he posts is of little interest to me. Nevertheless, I haven't missed criticism tossed his way, as his critics have made that impossible. Frankly, I don't know if any of the scurrilous allegations lodged against AD are in any way valid, so if any are, (being a rule breaker), please let us know what rule(s) was/were broken.


So, per your own words, you rarely read AD's material (which is voluminous/pervasive and FAR outnumbers the post count of anyone else, save for SLAD, by a WIDE margin), BUT yet you "haven't missed criticism tossed his way", which, relative to AD's output, pales in volume. Despite your own admission that you RARELY READ AD's material -- and therefore have ZERO insight into the validity of the claims against him -- you choose to opine here and openly scrutinize these claims, and further, question the decision by the mods to suspend AD, a member who you essentially ignore?

Prior to commenting on this topic, it may be useful to perform some due diligence/analysis of the available information first. Or not: performing analysis/due diligence is certainly not a prerequisite to opining here, clearly.

I'd suggest those questioning mod decisions apply a measure of trust the mods are taking actions in good faith, based on their best judgment.


By now you may have read what I wrote 3 times, Belligerent one. Nowhere in what I wrote is a criticism of either of our moderators.I simply asked our mods for the reason for AD's suspension to be made public. Clearly, due diligence is not a prerequisite for opining here. You realized how dumb that sounded after pretty much telling me I had no right to comment? And no one, I have often been told, need respond to any comment offered. But if you feel up to offering a response to justify your false accusation against me, you might want to point out for me and all others reading this where I "scrutinized" the moderator's ruling.

Seems you and WRex have caught the reading comprehension flu! It'll pass soon, I hope.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:08 pm

Glad to see you back, Mac; one of "our -- more eloquent, more thoughtful -- posters."
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:29 pm

Feck off, tea!
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:36 pm

Such eloquence - I'm flattered.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:12 pm

.
IAM: nowhere did I type that your were criticizing the mods.
I also in no way indicated you had no right to comment; to the contrary, I merely suggested performing due diligence in advance, so that you can perhaps better understand the impetus behind the claims made leading up to a given suspension, being that (per your own admission) you haven't read much - if any - of the source material.

You're seeing things that aren't there. I've nothing further to add.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:18 pm

I stand corrected, BS. No you didn't claim I criticized the mods. I apologize for my error. "...Despite your own admission that you RARELY READ AD's material -- and therefore have ZERO insight into the validity of the claims against him -- you choose to opine here and openly scrutinize these claims, and further, question the decision by the mods to suspend AD, a member who you essentially ignore?"

I should have written what was a false claim made by you was that you wrote I "openly scrutinized" the claims being made by you and others about AD. I did no such thing. Please finally recognize all I asked for was for the mods to post the reason, ie, which rule was broken, they were suspending another member for. In part, as I wrote earlier, I asked because I do not pay close attention to AD's offerings and missed witnessing the rule violation. Such notices are long overdue.

Scrutinizing the rationale of those complaining is far above my pay grade and of no interest to me whatsoever. And I didn't question Elvis' decision, I asked him to post notices of suspensions. I think the only time I ever offered an opinion on a moderator's decision was when SRP suspended Burnt Hill.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:33 pm

.

I "openly scrutinized" the claims being made by you and others about AD. I did no such thing. Please finally recognize all I asked for was for the mods to post the reason, ie, which rule was broken, they were suspending another member for. In part, as I wrote earlier, I asked because I do not pay close attention to AD's offerings and missed witnessing the rule violation. Such notices are long overdue.


- I may have misread your intention, then (Re: scrutiny), though it was also partially based on allusions along these lines in the past; I am also further recognizing your request of the mods, as you outline above.

Hopefully this will inspire a :thumbsup
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:01 pm

:thumbsup

Regarding my "allusions:" See, I don't get the animosity towards AD. Thread proliferation? I don't see the harm others perceive in AD's materials, so let me ask what harm is he causing? Are long time more eloquent and thoughtful posters fearing AD's material will somehow taint them or RI in general? Really, what evil presence am I in that I cannot detect, even sense. Seriously what is the harm being caused by their continued participation? Is he running an ARG? Pretty weak, if he is, and all but alone. And utterly ineffective, imo.

Put it in print - why is this person so despised as to be censored from being read on RI's pages? Please simply explain what rule AD violated to warrant his suspension.

If the man poses some real danger, you folks are terrible at raising the alarm, btw. If he does please define what dangers he poses us and RI's future readers.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:10 pm

Thank you for your questions .....I can tell you that AD posted an article in a thread of mine which I did not object to and in my opinion it was not a forbidden link but Jack did for some reason he was playing nanny to my thread. and this was in the data dump he alerted on it along with someone else that alerted on it who was not involved in the thread and kinda weird because basicly it is only two people posting in that forum and neither one of us cared :shrug:

Jack must have phoned a friend.... I’m positive it wasn’t fruhmenschen :D

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=41461


.....then Jack had his hissy fit.. ..actually breaking the rules about a link that was not breaking the rules and posted this OP in GD ...where it still remains as locked


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41464&p=667667#p667667


.....then Elvis deleted the article from my thread ...that was the start of the present troubles and AD being banned for a year


Why two people who had nothing to do with my thread decided what should or should not be posted in my thread is beyond me
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:49 pm

Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 pm wrote:
Regarding my "allusions:" See, I don't get the animosity towards AD.


Good God, man. How WOULD you "get" it if you ignore MOST of AD's content, which (again) you admitted above?

You don't GET IT because you are largely ignorant of the details, by your own admission.

I must cut myself off now to avoid further circular argumentation.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5216
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:04 am

Thanks, slAd. I missed the first link but caught the second, which, at the time, I found puzzling.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sat Jan 05, 2019 12:17 am

Belligerent Savant » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:49 pm wrote:
Iamwhomiam » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:01 pm wrote:
Regarding my "allusions:" See, I don't get the animosity towards AD.


Good God, man. How WOULD you "get" it if you ignore MOST of AD's content, which (again) you admitted above?

You don't GET IT because you are largely ignorant of the details, by your own admission.

I must cut myself off now to avoid further circular argumentation.


Please do. It's really best. Way better than answering any question I asked you. Just pulling your usual slippery self out of answering a direct question. I'll repeat myself:

See, I don't get the animosity towards AD. Thread proliferation? I don't see the harm others perceive in AD's materials, so let me ask what harm is he causing? Are long time more eloquent and thoughtful posters fearing AD's material will somehow taint them or RI in general? Really, what evil presence am I in that I cannot detect, even sense. Seriously what is the harm being caused by their continued participation? Is he running an ARG? Pretty weak, if he is, and all but alone. And utterly ineffective, imo.

Put it in print - why is this person so despised as to be censored from being read on RI's pages? Please simply explain what rule AD violated to warrant his suspension.

If the man poses some real danger, you folks are terrible at raising the alarm, btw. If he does please define what dangers he poses us and RI's future readers.

I ask you directly to simply explain by answering my questions. I don't want an argument; I want answers.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

Postby Heaven Swan » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:43 am

I don’t have a problem with AD’s content, on the contrary, I think he posts a lot of important material. And, I am absolutely opposed to censoring or banning people because of their views.

My problem with him is how he posts. As a relatively new poster, I was heartened and encouraged by the support of the moderator (Wombaticus Rex at the time) when AD tried to bury the Gender Identity

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40036&hilit=Us+gov+rules+on+gender+identity

thread I started by deluging it with every liberal feminist or trans supportive article he could find. AD clearly has a lot more time on his hands than I do. He seems to treat posting here as his job so there was no way I could keep up.

Besides, we’re bombarded by the liberal viewpoint on the trans issue in every mainstream and university media outlet, but the radical feminist viewpoint is being censored and no platformed. Radical feminists have received reams of death threats, been physically attacked, have lost their jobs, etc, for raising questions about these issues.

Currently, two of the RadFem women who have spoken out on the trans issue, have been censored by WordPress and Twitter respectively. GallusMag’s blog Gendertrender has been down for at least a month, and Meghan Murphy of Feminist Current was permanently banned by Twitter. (See following thread for more info).

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41463

I have no problem with people who post liberal material, but as a discussion forum I feel we should own and argue our views and engage respectfully.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests